MSS/& 


m* 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


'  Shelf 


BR  45  .B63  1890  nooo 

Perry,  William  Stevens,  1832 

-1898. 

The  general  ecclesiastical 

constitution  of  the  • 

;^  i  \s 


■ 


v\ 


\t  J>flljbn  Jbtiures,  4§9e 


THE  GENERAL 


ECCLESIASTICAL  CONSTITUTION 

OF    THE 

American  Church 

ITS    HISTORY    AND    RATIONALE 
BY 

WILLIAM   STEVENS   PERRY 

BISHOP    OF    IOWA 


Delivered  in  the   Church   of   the   Holy  Trinity, 

Philadelphia,  in  April  and  May, 

1890 


NEW  YORK 

THOMAS    WHITTAKER 

2  and  3  Bible  House 
I  89  1 


THE  JOHN  BOHLEN  LECTURESHIP 


John  Bohlen,  who  died  in  Philadelphia  on  the 
26th  day  of  April,  1874,  bequeathed  to  trustees  a 
fund  of  One  Hundred  Thousand  Dollars,  to  be 
distributed  to  religious  and  charitable  objects 
in  accordance  with  the  well-known  wishes  of 
the  testator. 

By  a  deed  of  trust,  executed  June  2d,  1875,  tne 
trustees  under  the  will  of  Mr.  Bohlen  transferred 
and  paid  over  to  ''The  Rector,  Church  Wardens, 
and  Vestrymen  of  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Trin- 
ity, Philadelphia,"  in  trust,  a  sum  of  money  for 
certain  designated  purposes,  out  of  which  fund 
the  sum  of  Ten  Thousand  Dollars  was  set  apart 
for  the  endowment  of  The  John  Bohlen  Lect- 
ureship, upon  the  following  terms  and  conditions  : 

The  money  shall  be  invested  in  good,  substantial,  and 
safe  securities,  and  held  in  trust  for  a  fund  to  be  called  Tbe 
John  Bohlen  Lectureship,  and  the  income  shall  be  applied 
annually  to  the  payment  of  a  qualified  person,  whether 
clergyman  or  layman,  for  the  delivery,  and  publication  of 
at  least  one  hundred  copies,  of  two  or  more  lecture-ser- 
mons. These  Lectures  shall  be  delivered  at  such  time  and 
place,  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  as  the  persons  nominated 
to  appoint  the  lecturer  shall  from  time  to  time  determine, 
giving  at  least  six  months'  notice  to  the  person  appointed 


The  Bohlen  Lectureship. 


to  deliver  the  same,  when  the  same  may  conveniently  be 
done,  and  in  no  case  selecting  the  same  person  as  lecturer 
a  second  time  within  a  period  of  five  years.  The  payment 
shall  be  made  to  said  lecturer,  after  the  lectures  have  been 
printed  and  received  by  the  trustees,  of  all  the  income  for 
the  year  derived  from  said  fund,  after  defraying  the  expense 
of  printing  the  lectures  and  the  other  incidental  expenses 
attending  the  same. 

The  subject  of  such  lectures  shall  be  such  as  is  within 
the  terms  set  forth  in  the  will  of  the  Rev.  John  Bampton, 
for  the  delivery  of  what  are  known  as  the  "  Bampton  Lect- 
ures," at  Oxford,  or  any  other  subject  distinctively  con- 
nected with  or  relating  to  the  Christian  Religion. 

The  lecturer  shall  be  appointed  annually  in  the  month 
of  May,  or  as  soon  thereafter  as  can  conveniently  be  done, 
by  the  persons  who,  for  the  time  being,  shall  hold  the 
offices  of  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the 
Diocese  in  which  is  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Trinity;  the 
Rector  of  said  Church ;  the  Professor  of  Biblical  Learning, 
the  Professor  of  Systematic  Divinity,  and  the  Professor  of 
Ecclesiastical  History,  in  the  Divinity  School  of  the  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Church  in  Philadelphia. 

In  case  either  of  said  offices  are  vacant,  the  others  may 
nominate  the  lecturer. 


Under  this  trust,  the  Rt.  Rev.  William  Stevens 
Perry,  Bishop  of  Iowa,  was  appointed  to  deliver 
the  lecture,  for  the  year  1890. 

Bishop's  House, 

Davenport,  Iowa,  Easter,  1891. 


LECTURES 
ON  THE  BOHLEN  FOUNDATION. 


Delivered   in   the    Church   of  the    Holy  Trinity, 
Philadelphia. 


1S77.     By  the  Rev.  Alexander  H.  Vinton,  D.  D. 
Inaugural  Series. 

1878.  By  the  Rt.  Rev.  Frederick  D.  Huntington,  D.  D., 
LL.  D.,  Bishop  of  Central  New  York. 

The  Fitness  of  Christianity  to  Man. 

1879.  By  the  Rev.  Phillips  Brooks,  D.  D.,  Oxon. 

The  Influence  of  Jesus. 

1880.  By  the  Very  Rev.  John  F.  Howson,  D.  D.,  Dean  of 
Chester,  Eng. 

The  Evidential  Value  of  the  Acts  oj  the  Apostles. 

1881.  By  the  Rt.  Rev.  Thomas  U.  Dudley,  E.  D.,  Bishop 
of  Kentucky. 

The  Church's  Need. 

1882.  By  the  Rt.  Rev.  Samuel  S.  Harris,  D.  D.,  LL.  D., 
Bishop  of  Michigan. 

The  Relation  of   Christianity  to  Civil  Society. 

1883.  By  the  Rev.  Alexander  V.  G.  Allen,  D.  D. 

The  Continuity  of  Christian  Thought '. 

1887.     By  the  Rev.  Joseph  F.  Garrison,  D.  D. 
The  American  Prayer  Book. 

1890.     By  the  Rt.  Rev.  William  Stevens  Perry,  D.D.,  Oxon., 
LL.  D.,  D.  C.  L.,  Bishop  of  Iowa. 

Constitutional  History  of  the  American  Church. 


TO    MY    FRIEND, 

R.    Y.    COOK,    Esq.,    M.    A., 
THESE  LECTURES, 

MOSTLY    WRITTEN    UNDER    HIS    HOSPITABLE    ROOF 
AT    WYNNEMERE, 

ARE 

GRATEFULLY     INSCRIBED 

IN    MEMORY    OF    COUNTLESS 
KINDNESSES. 


THE    HISTORY   AND    RATIONALE    OF 

THE    GENERAL    ECCLESIASTICAL 

CONSTITUTION  OF  THE 

AMERICAN  CHURCH. 


I. 

"  the  case  of  the  episcopal  churches 
considered:' 

^HE  leading  incidents  of  the  history  of  our 
ecclesiastical  organization  centre  around 
a  single  man,  —  a  single  name.  The  story  of 
our  progress  from  a  condition  of  dependency 
upon  the  Mother  Church  of  England,  to  inde- 
pendence and  autonomy  as  a  branch  of  Christ's 
Holy  Catholic  Church,  is  told  in  the  life-his- 
tory of  William  White,  who  for  upwards  of 
half  a  century  was  the  guiding  spirit  and  the 
judicious  head  of  the  Communion  he  had  done 
so  much  to  found  and  shape.  It  is  with  the 
purpose,  —  as  we  enter  upon  the  second  cen- 
tury of  our  united  independent  existence  as  a 
Church,  —  of  recalling  attention  to  the  wise 
master-building  of  the  first  Bishop  of  Pennsyl- 


The  General  Ecclesiastical 


vania  that  we  would  review  the  history,  and  ex- 
amine the  underlying  principles,  of  our  Eccles- 
iastical Constitution  —  that  instrument  which, 
with  but  trifling  changes,  has  been  our  bond 
of  union  and  our  bill  of  rights  for  one  hundred 
years.  To  trace  the  gradual  development  of 
the  principles  which  have  guided  our  ecclesi- 
astical legislation  and  shaped  our  ecclesias- 
tical condition  during  these  years  of  growth 
and  prosperity  is  a  duty,  owed  to  the  memory 
of  those  who  have  secured  for  us  these  privi- 
leges. To  find  in  the  broad,  comprehensive 
and  logical  statements  of  an  almost  forgotten 
pamphlet,  —  the  production  of  a  young  man, — 
rector  of  the  United  Congregations  of  Christ 
Church  and  St.  Peter's,  Philadelphia,  the  germ 
of  an  ecclesiastical  system  so  full  as  to  require 
but  little  change  to  make  it  adapted  to  all  the 
needs  of  a  century  of  life  and  constant  in- 
crease, is  surely  a  matter  of  interest  to  those 
who  care  at  all  about  the  foundation  princi- 
ples of  our  ecclesiastical  government  and  the 
philosophy  of  our  history.  To  learn  that  we 
have  yet  to  reach,  as  a  Church,  in  its  fulness 
the    entire    system    thus   indicated    with    far- 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.       3 

seeing  astuteness  and  consummate  wisdom, 
should  lead  us  to  recognize  the  great  ability 
of  this  leader  of  our  Israel  from  the  state  of 
pupilage  to  ecclesiastical  independence  and 
autonomy.  Our  theme,  then,  is  The  History 
and  Rationale  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Constitu- 
tion of  the  American  Church.  We  propose  to 
treat  it  in  the  following  order: 

First,  William  White  and  his  pamphlet,  The 
Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches  Considered. 

In  considering  this,  the  first  ecclesiastical 
state  paper  of  the  period  of  our  Church's  or- 
ganization, we  shall  examine  the  positions,  and 
trace  the  development  of  the  principles,  set 
forth  in  this  pamphlet  written  by  William 
White  at  a  period  of  the  Church's  depression 
and  partial  overthrow,  —  prepared  and  pub- 
lished at  a  juncture  in  civil  and  ecclesiastical 
affairs  when  other  men's  minds  failed  them  for 
fear  and  for  looking  for  that  which  was  so 
likely  to  come  —  the  utter  extinction  of  the 
Church  which  had  been  planted  on  American 
shores  two  hundred  years  before. 

Secondly,  we  propose  to  review  the  meth- 
ods and  plans  for  organization  taken   by  the 


The  General  Ecclesiastical 


Churchmen  in  the  Northern  States  and  by 
those  of  the  Middle  and  Southern  States,  no- 
ting the  gradual  recognition  and  adoption  of 
the  principles  so  clearly  set  forth  in  The  Case 
of  the  Episcopal  Churches  Considered,  and  nec- 
essarily bringing  into  prominence  as  a  leader 
and  guide  the  author  of  this  remarkable  eccle- 
siastical state  paper. 

In  this  connection  we  shall  naturally  reach 
the  question  of  the  nature  of  the  Episcopate 
sought  and  secured  by  our  fathers;  and  it  will 
be  the  object  of  our  investigations  to  ascertain 
the  scope  and  powers  of  the  Episcopal  Office 
as  revealed  by  the  history  of  the  measures 
through  which  this  office  and  administration 
was  obtained. 

Our  next  purpose  will  be  the  consideration 
of  the  union  of  the  Churches  in  1789,  and  the 
influence  of  this  confederation  on  the  Ecclesi- 
astical Constitution  which  now  took  its  final 
shape  and  is,  with  slight  variations,  the  charter 
of  our  Church  organization  to-day. 

And  lastly,  we  shall  consider  the  rationale 
of  the  Constitution — noting  its  dominant  ideas; 
tracing  its  successive  modifications;   and  con- 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.       5 

sidering  the  suggestions  of  William  White  as 
to  its  further  development  and  its  adaptation 
to  the  Church's  needs  in  the  time  to  come. 

In  this  order,  and  with  these  purposes  in 
view,  we  propose  to  treat  the  theme  we  have 
chosen  as  a  contribution  to  the  centenary  lit- 
erature of  the  American  Church. 

The  eminently  wise  and  judicious  Bishop 
Alonzo  Potter,  in  his  sketch  of  William  White, 
uses  this  language  respecting  his  predecessor 
in  the  see  of  Pennsylvania: — 

"The  peace  of  1783  had  not  been  concluded 
before  he  had  sketched  out,  in  a  pamphlet  entitled 
'The  Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches  Considered,' 
a  plan  for  the  organization  of  our  infant  Commun- 
ion, which  shows  the  comprehensive  skill  of  a 
statesman,  and  which  ultimately  commended  itself 
to  general  acceptance.  The  essential  unity  of  the 
whole  American  Church  as  a  national  Church;  its 
independence  of  any  foreign  jurisdiction;  the  en- 
tire separation  of  the  spiritual  and  temporal  au- 
thority; the  participation  of  the  laity  in  the  legis- 
lation and  government  of  the  Church,  and  in  tin- 
election  of  its  ministers  of  every  grade;  the  equal- 
ity of  all  parishes,  and  a  threefold  organization 
(diocesan,   provincial,   and  general),   were  funda- 


The   General  Ecclesiastical 


mental  principles  in  his  plan,  as  they  were  in  that 
which  was  finally  adopted. 

"To  conceive  such  a  plan,  however,  was  much 
easier  than  to  secure  its  adoption.  The  difficulties 
which  had  to  be  encountered  were  such  as  might 
well  have  appalled  any  spirit  less  calm  and  patient, 
less  resolute  and  trustful  than  his  own.  This  is 
not  the  place,  nor  is  now  the  time,  in  which  to  set 
forth  the  unyielding  serenity  of  soul,  the  unfailing 
courtesy  and  kindness,  the  true  modesty  and  self- 
forgetfulness,  the  calm  sobriety  of  judgment,  the 
independence  of  personal  considerations,  and  the 
straightforward  honesty  and  zeal  which  gradually 
won  to  him  the  confidence  of  all  hearts,  and  which 
enabled  him  at  length  to  secure  the  cordial  accept- 
ance of  every  important  feature  in  his  original 
plan.  To  develop  these  services  in  full  will  be  the 
duty  of  the  future  historian;  and  upon  that  histor- 
ian will  devolve  the  grateful  task  of  showing  how 
his  steady  hand  guided  the  system  as  it  went  into 
operation;  and  how,  through  the  gracious  good- 
ness of  God,  he  was  permitted  for  more  than  forty 
years  to  be  in  every  emergency  its  most  honored 
and  trusted  administrator."* 


*Discourses,  Charges,  Addresses,  Pastoral  Letters,  cte., 
etc.,  by  Alonzo  Potter,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese 
of  Pennsylvania.     Philadelphia,  1858;  pp.  209,  210. 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.        7 

It  is  in  the  spirit  of  these  well-considered 
words,  and  in  memory  of  Bishop  White's  own 
claim  that  the  "incipient  measures"  were 
taken  by  himself  "for  the  organizing  of  our 
Church  out  of  the  wreck  of  the  Revolution," 
and  that  ''those  measures  began  with  the  au- 
thor's pamphlet,  entitled  'the  Case  of  the 
Episcopal  Churches  in  the  United  States  Con- 
sidered,'""" that  we  would  attempt  to  give  the 
history  and  rationale  of  the  General  Ecclesias- 
tical Constitution  of  the  American  Episcopal 
Church. 

The  condition  of  the  Church  of  England  in 
the  confederated  American  States,  as  the  war 
for  independence  wore  to  its  close,  is  summa- 
rily expressed  in  Bishop  White's  own  words: 

"The  congregations  of  our  Communion 
throughout  the  United  States  were  approach- 
ing to  annihilation.  Although  within  this  city 
(Philadelphia)  three  Episcopal  clergymen,  in- 
cluding the  author,  were  resident  and  officiat- 
ing, the  Church  over  the  rest  of  the  State  had 


*Vide  MS.  Note  on  The  Cttitrch  in  America,  by  William 
White,  published  in  photo- lithography  by  Thos.  II.  Mont- 
gomery, Esq.,  of  Philadelphia. 


8  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

become  deprived  of  their  clergy  during  the 
war,  either  by  death,  or  by  departure  for  En- 
gland. In  the  Eastern  States,  with  two  or 
three  exceptions,  there  was  a  cessation  of  the 
exercises  of  the  pulpit,  owing  to  the  necessary 
disuse  of  the  prayers  for  the  former  civil  rul- 
ers. In  Maryland  and  in  Virginia,  where  the 
Church  enjoyed  civil  establishments,  on  the 
ceasing  of  these,  the  incumbents  of  the  par- 
ishes, almost  without  exception,  ceased  to 
officiate.  Further  south,  the  condition  of  the 
Church  was  not  better,  to  say  the  least.  At 
the  time  in  question,  there  had  occurred  some 
circumstances  which  prompted  the  hope  of  a 
discontinuance  of  the  war;  but,  that  it  would 
be  with  the  acknowledgment  of  American 
Independence,  there  was  little  reason  to  ex- 
pect.        -      * 

"It  was  an  opinion  commonly  entertained, 
that  if  there  should  be  a  discontinuance  of 
military  operations,  it  would  be  without  the 
acknowledgment  of  independence,  as  hap- 
pened after  the  severance  of  the  Netherlands 
from  the  Crown  of  Spain.  Of  the  like  issue 
there  seemed  probable  causes,  in  the  feelings 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.       9 

attendant  on  disappointed  efforts  for  conquest; 
and  in  the  belief  cherished  that  the  successes 
of  the  former  colonists  would  be  followed  by 
dissentions,  inducing  return  to  the  domination 
of  the  mother  country.  Had  the  war  ended 
in  that  way,  our  obtaining  of  the  Succession 
from  England  would  have  been  hopeless.  The 
remnant  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  Scotland, 
laboring  under  penal  laws  not  executed,  would 
not  have  ventured  the  bringing  down  on  them- 
selves of  the  arm  of  government.  Fear  of  the 
like  offence  would  have  operated  in  any  other 
quarter  to  which  we  might  have  had  recourse. 
In  such  a  case,  the  obtaining  the  Succession 
in  time  to  save  from  ruin,  would  seem  to  have 
been  impossible."* 

*  Vide  MS.  Note  on  the  Church  in  America,  by  William 
White. 

Bishop  White  begins  the  concluding  paragraph  of  his 
"  Episcopal  Charge  on  the  Subject  of  Revivals,  delivered 
before  the  Forty-eight  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  Penn- 
sylvania," with  the  following  words:  — 

"  Brethren,  it  is  bordering  on  the  half  of  a  century  since 
the  date  of  the  incipient  measures  of  your  bishop,  for  the 
organising  of  our  Church  out  of  the  wreck  of  the  Revo- 
lution." 

On  a  copy  of  this  charge  in  the  possession  of  Thomas  H. 


io  The  General  Ecclesiastical 


It  was  under  these  circumstances  that  there 
appeared  in  Philadelphia,  from  the  pen  of 
William  White,  then  a  young  man  of  thirty  - 
four  years  of  age,  a  pamphlett  which  exerted  a 

Montgomery,  Esq.,  of  Philadelphia,  the  Bishop  has  added 
on  the  last  blank  pages  the  following  note :  — 

"  Those  measures  began  with  ye  Author'6  Pamphlet,  en- 
titled 'The  Case  of  ye  Episcopal  Churches  in  ye  United 
States  Considered.' 

"The  Circumstances  attached  to  that  Publication  are 
ye  following:  —  " 

The  words  we  have  quoted  are  from  the  photo  -  litho- 
grapic  reproduction  by  Mr.  Montgomery  of  Bishop  White's 
MS.  Note. 

|  Bishop  White's  account  of  the  appearance  of  this  pamph- 
let is  as  follows:  — 

"On  ye  sixth  of  August  1782,  ye  Congress,  as  noticed  on 
their  printed  Journal  of  that  Day,  received  a  Communica- 
tion from  Sir  Guy  Carleton  &  Admiral  Digby,  dated  ye  2d 
of  that  Month,  which  gave  ye  first  Opening  of  ye  Prospect 
of  Peace.  The  Pamphlet  had  been  advertised  for  Sale  in 
ye  Pennsylvania  Packet  of  ye  6th  &  some  Copies  had  been 
previously  handed  by  ye  Author  to  a  few  of  his  Friends. 
This  suspended  ye  intended  Proceedings  in  ye  Business; 
which,  in  ye  Opinion  of  ye  Author,  would  have  been  justi- 
fied by  Necessity,  &  by  no  other  Consideration." 

Copies  of  this  pamphlet  were  advertised  for  sale,  as  has 
been  stated,  in  the  Pennsylvania  Packet  of  August  6,  1782. 
This  statement  is  conclusive  as  to  the  original  appearance 
of  the  pamphlet.  Bishop  White  tells  us,  in  the  paragraph 
quoted  above  from  the  "MS.  Note"  reproduced  by  Mr. 


Constitution  of  t lie  American  Church.     II 

most  important  effect  on  the  organization  and 
the  very  existence  of  the  American  Church. 
Eliciting",  as  it  did,  the  most  careful  consid- 
eration and  the  most  unsparing  criticism,  it 
secured  for  all  but  a  single,  and  that  an  un- 
necessary, feature,  a  general  approval  and  the 
final  acceptance  of  the  plan  proposed.  This 
pamphlet  was  "The  Case  of  the  Episcopal 
Churches  Considered."      It  must  be   borne  in 

Montgomery  from  the  original  manuscript  in  his  posses- 
sion, that  "some  copies"  had  been  previously  handed  by 
the  author  to  a  few  of  his  friends.  Copies  bearing  the  date 
of  1782  are  to  be  found  in  the  public  libraries  in  Philadel- 
phia and  elsewhere.  Bishop  White,  in  his  Memoirs  [second 
edition,  p.  89],  speaks  of  the  pamphlet  as  "  published  in  the 
summer  of  1783,"  and  the  reprint  by  Stavely  in  1827,  to- 
gether with  that  issued  by  Hamilton,  in  1859,  and  that  ap- 
pended to  Perry's  Reprint  of  the  Early  Journals,  iii.  pp. 
416-435,  give  the  date  of  Claypole's  edition  as  1783.  There 
seems  every  probability  that,  since  the  prospect  of  peace 
opened,  as  it  did,  almost  contemporaneously  with  the  first 
appearance  of  this  pamphlet,  rendering  its  plea  of  necessity 
no  longer  serviceable,  its  distribution  was  suspended,  and  it 
was  withheld  from  general  circulation  till  the  time  named 
in  the  Bishop's  Memoirs,  the  summer  of  1783.  One  of  the 
early  copies  must  have  fallen  into  the  hands  of  the  Con- 
vocation of  the  Connecticut  Clergy.  The  original  editions 
of  1782  and  1783  are  exceedingly  rare,  and  of  the  Stavely 
reprint  but  few  exist. 


12  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

mind  that  this  paper  was  originally  published 
during  the  first  week  in  August,  1782.      When 
it  was  written  and  even  when  it  first  appeared 
from  the  press,  there  had  been   no  acknowl- 
edged  negotiations   between   the    contending 
parties  looking  to  an  amicable  settlement  of 
differences  between  the  two  countries  on    the 
basis  of  a  recognition  of  American  independ- 
ence.     It  was  prepared  at  a  time  when   the 
author,    in   common   with   the   great   body   of 
American  churchmen,  both  clergy  and   laity, 
were  "despairing  of  a  speedy  acknowledgment 
of  our  independence  although  there   was   not 
likely  to  be  more  of  war."* 
The  communication  of  Sir  Guy  Carleton  and 
Admiral    Digby    to    the    American    Congress 
changed  at  once  the  aspect  of  affairs.      The 
pamphlet  was  at  once  withdrawn  from   sale, 
and  such  copies  as  were  within  the  author's 
reach  were  destroyed.     Some  had  been  distrib- 
uted among  friends  and  were  consequently  in 
circulation;  and  early  the  following  year  some 
additional  copies  were  issued  from  the  press, 
evidently    to  enable  persons  whose  curiosity 
*  Bishop  White's  letter  to  Bishop  Hobart. 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     13 

had  been  excited,  to  judge  as  to  the  nature  of 
the  propositions  advanced  by  the  writer  of  the 
work. 

It  does  not  appear  that  any  pains  were 
taken  by  the  writer  to  secure  either  the  sale 
or  the  further  circulation  of  copies  of  this 
pamphlet,  which  in  its  original  form  has  be- 
come one  of  the  rarest  of  our  Ecclesiastical 
"Americana."  While  giving,  as  he  did,  his 
best  efforts  to  further  the  adoption  of  the 
other  measures  so  clearly  set  forth  in  this 
pamphlet,  William  White  recognized  at  once 
the  fact  that,  with  the  acknowledgment  of 
American  independence,  the  expedient  of  a 
temporary  departure  from  the  Church's  rule 
and  practice  "from  the  Apostles'  times"  of 
the  historic  Episcopate,  was  no  longer  neces- 
sary. The  proposition  advanced  was  confess- 
edly an  expedient.  It  stood  alone  on  the 
plea  of  necessity,  and  that  plea  failing,  it  was 
never  urged  again.  In  fact,  it  is  to  William 
White  more  than  to  any  other  man,  and  to  his 
unremitting  labors  in  its  behalf,  that  the  cov- 
eted "succession"  in  the  English  line  was  at 
length  obtained;    and  the    "historic    Episco- 


14  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

pate,"  in  its  completeness,  was  secured  for  the 
infant  American  Church. 

In  the  preface  to  this  remarkable  ecclesias- 
tical state -paper  the  author  assumes  "that 
the  members  of  the  Episcopal  Churches,  some 
from  conviction,  and  others  from  the  influence 
of  ancient  habits,  entertain  a  preference  for 
their  own  communion;  and  that  accordingly 
they  are  not  a  little  anxious  to  see  some 
speedy  and  decisive  measures  adopted  for  its 
continuance."  The  writer  "believes,  there- 
fore, that  his  undertaking  needs  no  apology  to 
the  public,  and  that  those  for  whom  it  is  de- 
signed will  give  him  credit  for  his  good  inten- 
tions." He  regards  his  purpose  as  "subser- 
vient to  the  general  cause  of  religion  and 
virtue;  for  a  numerous  society,  losing  the 
benefit  of  the  stated  ordinances  within  itself, 
cannot  but  severely  feel  the  effect  of  such  a 
change,  on  the  piety  and  morals  of  its  mem- 
bers." "In  this  point  of  view,"  proceeds  our 
author,  "all  good  men  must  lament  that 
cessation  of  public  worship,  which  has  hap- 
pened to  many  of  the  Episcopal  Churches,  and 
threatens  to  become  universal."     The  writer 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     15 

claims  that  his  present  work  is  "connected 
with  the  civil  happiness  of  the  community." 
He  next  strives  to  correct  a  popular  fallacy. 
"A  prejudice  has  prevailed,"  he  proceeds, 
"with  many,  that  the  Episcopal  Churches 
cannot  otherwise  exist  than  under  the  domin- 
ion of  Great  Britain."  He  therefore  claims 
that  "A  church  government  that  would  con- 
tain the  constituent  principles  of  the  Church 
of  England,  and  yet  be  independent  of  foreign 
jurisdiction  or  influence,  would  remove  that 
anxiety,  which  at  present  hangs  heavy  on  the 
minds  of  many  sincere  persons."  The  writer 
concludes  with  the  expression  of  the  hope 
that  if  ''this  performance"  should  "fail  of 
effect  on  account  of  the  insufficiency  of  the 
author,  it  may  nevertheless  be  of  advantage, 
by  drawing  to  the  subject  the  attention  of 
others,  better  qualified  for  the  undertaking." 
Thus  modestly  introducing  the  work  he  has 
taken  in  hand,  the  writer  of  "The  Case  of  the 
Episcopal  Churches  Considered,"  proceeds  to 
enable  his  readers  "to  form  an  idea  of  the 
situation  of  the  Episcopal  Churches  in  the 
present    crisis"  by  calling  their  attention  to 


1 6  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

"the  change  their  religious  system  has  under- 
gone in  the  late  Revolution."  Laying  down 
the  axiom  that  "on  whatever  principles  the 
independence  of  the  United  States  may  be 
supposed  to  rest  *  *  *  *  there  results 
from  it  the  reciprocal  duties  of  protection  and 
allegiance,  enforced  by  the  most  powerful 
sanctions  of  natural  and  revealed  religion," 
the  writer  calls  attention  to  the  fact  "that  in 
general,  the  members  of  the  Episcopal 
Churches  are  friendly  to  the  principles  on 
which  the  present  governments  were  formed, 
a  fact  particularly  obvious  in  the  Southern 
States,  where  the  Episcopalians  were,"  as  he 
asserts,  "a  majority  of  the  citizens,"  and 
"engaged  and  persevered  in  the  war  with  as 
much  ardor  and  constancy  as  their  neigh- 
bors.""* "Many  even  of  those  whose  senti- 
ments were  at  first  unfavorable  to  the  Revo- 


*This  testimony  to  the  patriotism  of  American  church- 
men from  one  who  could  not  have  been  mistaken  is  con- 
firmed by  abundant  evidence.  The  men  who  won  for  us 
independence  by  their  bravery  on  the  field  of  battle  or  con- 
tributed to  the  same  result  by  their  wisdom  in  the  halls  of 
Congress,  were  largely  members  of  our  Communion,  and 
were  as  earnest  Churchmen  as  they  were  patriots. 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church,      ij 

lution,"  proceeds  the  writer,  "now  wish  for 
its  final  establishment  as  a  most  happy  event; 
some  from  an  earnest  desire  for  peace,  and 
others  from  the  undistinguishing  oppressions 
and  ravages  of  the  British  armies.  Such 
persons  accordingly  acknowledge  allegiance 
and  pay  obedience  to  the  sovereignty  of  the 
States." 

With  this  clear  and  concise  statement  of  the 
case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches,  at  the  time  of 
his  writing,  the  author  proceeds  to  lay  down 
logically  and  forcibly  the  postulates  on  which 
his  further  arguments  depend. 

"Inconsistent  with  the  duties  resulting  from 
this  allegiance,"  he  proceeds,  "would  be  their 
subjection  to  any  spiritual  jurisdiction,  con- 
nected with  the  temporal  authority  of  a  for- 
eign state.  Such  a  dependence  is  contrary  to 
the  fundamental  principles  of  civil  society, 
and  therefore  cannot  be  required  by  the 
Scriptures;  which,  being  accommodated  to 
the  civil  policy  of  the  world  at  large,  neither 
interfered  with  the  constitution  of  States,  as 
found  established  at  the  time  of  their  promul- 


1 8  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

gation,  nor  handed  down  to  succeeding  ages 
any  injunctions  of  such  a  tendency. 

"To  apply  these  observations  to  the  case 
of  the  Episcopal  Churches  in  the  United 
States,"  is  the  writer's  next  object.  "They," 
— these  Episcopal  Churches,  —  "have  hereto- 
fore been  subject  to  the  ecclesiastical  author- 
ity of  the  Bishop  of  London.  This  authority 
was  derived  under  a  commission  from  the 
crown;  which,  though  destitute  of  legal  oper- 
ation, found  a  general  acquiescence  on  the 
part  of  the  Churches,  being  exercised  no 
farther  than  to  the  necessary  purposes  of 
ordaining  and  licensing  ministers.  Hereby  a 
connection  was  formed  between  the  spiritual 
authority  in  England  and  the  Episcopal 
Churches  in  America,  the  latter  constituting 
a  part  of  the  Bishop  of  London's  diocese. 

"But  this  connection  is  dissolved  by  the 
Revolution.  Had  it  been  matter  of  right,  it 
would  have  ceased  with  the  authority  of  the 
crown;  being  founded  on  consent,  and  the 
ground  changed,  it  cannot  be  allowed  of  in 
future,  consistently  with  the  duties  resulting 
from  our  allegiance.     Even  suppose  the  Bish- 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     19 

op  of  London  hereafter  exempted,  by  Act  of 
Parliament,  from  the  necessity  of  exacting 
the  oaths,  a  dependence  on  his  lordship  and 
his  successors  in  that  see  would  be  liable  to 
the  reproach  of  foreign  influence,  and  render 
Episcopalians  less  qualified,  than  those  of 
other  communions,  to  be  entrusted  by  their 
country;*  neither  (as  may  be  presumed)  will 
it  be  claimed  after  the  acknowledgment  of  the 
civil  independence,  being  contrary  to  a  prin- 
ciple clearly  implied  in  many  of  the  institu- 
tions of  the  Church  of  England,  particularly 
in  the  XXXIVth  Article  of  Religion,  which 
asserts  that  'every  particular  or  national 
Church  hath  authority  to  ordain,  change  and 
abolish  ceremonies  or  rites  in  the  Church, 
ordained  only  by  man's  authority,  so  far  that 
all  things  be  done  to  edifying.'     Though  the 

*  The  name  of  the  communion  alluded  to  being  changed, 
how  clearly  and  with  what  foresight  do  the  words  and  argu- 
ments of  William  White  indicate  the  position  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  in  this  country — an  alien  Church  depend- 
ent on  a  foreign  potentate,  and  committed  by  the  Syllabus 
to  principles  hopelessly  at  variance  with  our  Constitution 
and  laws.  How  little  can  such  a  body  lay  claim  to  the  title, 
reiterated  with  applause  at  the  recent  Baltimore  Congress, 
of  "The  American  Catholic  Church." 


20  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

Episcopal  Churches  in  these  States  will  not 
be  national  or  legal  establishments,  the  same 
principle  applies,  being  the  danger  of  foreign 
jurisdiction. 

"The  ecclesiastical  power  over  the  greater 
number  of  the  Churches,  formerly  subsisting 
in  some  legislative  bodies  on  this  continent, 
is  also  abrogated  by  the  Revolution.  In  the 
Southern  States  where  the  Episcopal  Churches 
were  maintained  by  law,  the  assemblies  might 
well  have  been  supposed  empowered,  in  con- 
junction with  the  other  branches  of  legislation, 
to  regulate  their  external  government;*  but 
now,  when  the  establishments  are  overturned, 
it  would  ill  become  those  bodies,  composed  of 

*  This  was  attempted  by  the  civil  authority  at  least  in  a 
few  instances.  In  Virginia,  on  the  day  after  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence,  the  State  Convention  "altered  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  to  accommodate  it  to  the  change 
in  affairs,"  and  by  subsequent  legislation  restrained  the 
clergy  from  consenting,  directly  or  indirectly,  "  to  any  alter- 
ations in  the  order,  government,  doctrine  or  worship  of  the 
Church."  Maryland,  at  a  later  date,  attempted  by  civil 
legislation  to  effect  the  organization  of  the  Church,  and  the 
appointment  of  persons  to  exercise  Episcopal  functions. 
Vide  Perry's  Reprint  of  the  Early  Journals,  III.,  103,  104; 
Hawks'  Bed.  Contributions,  I.  Virginia,  239;  II.  Maryland, 
284;  Hoffman's  Law  of  the  Church,  p.  31,  etc. 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     21 

men  of  various  denominations  (however  re- 
spectable collectively  and  as  individuals),  to 
enact  laws  for  the  Episcopal  Churches,  which 
will  no  doubt,  in  common  with  others,  claim 
and  exercise  the  privilege  of  governing  them- 
selves." 

This  initial  chapter  of  The  Case  of  the  Epis- 
copal CJuircJics  Considered,  from  which  we 
have  quoted  so  fully  in  view  of  the  broad  and 
pertinent  principles  it  lays  down,  concludes 
as  follows: — 

"All  former  jurisdiction  over  the  Churches 
being  thus  withdrawn,  and  the  chain  which 
held  them  together  broken,  it  would  seem  that 
their  future  continuance  can  be  provided  for 
only  by  voluntary  associations  for  union  and 
good  government.  It  is  therefore  of  the  ut- 
most consequence,  to  discover  and  ascertain 
the  principles  on  which  such  associations 
should  be  framed." 

In  these  pregnant  words,  "voluntary  asso- 
ciations for  union  and  good  government,"  we 
have  the  germ  of  the  General  and  Diocesan 
Conventions  of  the  American  Church. 

In  the  second  chapter  of   The  Case  of  the 


22  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

Episcopal  Churches  Considered,"  attention  is 
called  to  the  fact  that  in  the  view  of  the  State 
"all  denominations  of  Christians  are  on  a 
level,  and  no  Church  is  farther  known  to  the 
public  than  as  a  voluntary  association  of  indi- 
viduals for  a  lawful  and  useful  purpose. "  ' '  The 
effect  of  this,"  it  is  urged,  "should  be  the 
avoidance  of  whatever  may  give  the  Churches 
the  appearance  of  being  subservient  to  party, 
or  tend  to  unite  their  members  on  questions 
of  a  civil  nature."  "This,"  proceeds  the  judi- 
cious writer,  "is  unquestionably  agreeable  to 
the  simplicity  of  the  Gospel;  it  is  conceived  to 
be  also,  under  the  present  circumstances, 
agreeable  to  good  policy;  for  whatever  Church 
shall  aim  at  such  objects,  unless  on  account 
of  an  invasion  of  their  religious  privileges, 
will  be  suspected  by  all  others,  as  aiming  at 
the  exclusive  government  of  the  country." 
With  this  introductory  reference  to  the  posi- 
tion of  the  Episcopal  Churches  in  the  eye  of 
the  law,  after  stating  that  "in  the  parent 
Church,"  though  "whatever  regards  religion 
may  be  enacted  by  the  clergy  in  convocation," 
it  "must  afterwards  have  the  sanction  of  all 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     23 

other  orders  of  men  comprehended  in  the  Par- 
liament," the  principle  is  laid  down  that  "it 
will  be  necessary  to  deviate  from  the  practice 
(though  not  from  the  principles)  of  that 
Church  by  convening  the  clergy  and  laity  in 
one  body."  The  enunciation  of  this  funda- 
mental principle  of  the  organization  of  the 
American  Church  which  originated  in  the 
active  mind  of  William  White,' and  of  which 
these  words  are  the  first  expression  in  public 
or  in  print,  is  supported  by  references  to  the 
judicious  Hooker  and  is  accompanied  by  the 
following  practical  application  of  the  principle 
involved,  to-wit: — "The  power  of  electing  a 
superior  order  of  ministers  ought  to  be  in  the 
clergy  and  laity  together,  they  being  both 
interested  in  the  choice."  It  is  further  urged 
that  "deprivation  of  the  superior  order  of 
clergy,  should  also  be  in  the  Church  at  large." 
Supporting  these  principles, — that  the  peo- 
ple should  exercise  the  right  of  representation, 
and  the  amenability  of  even  Bishops  to  "an 
authority  entirely  ecclesiastical,"  by  references 
to  early,  as  well  as  to  English,  ecclesiastical 
history;  the  second  chapter  of  The  Case  of  the 


24  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

Episcopal  Churches  Considered  closes  with  the 
statement  of  the  principle  of  "the  equality  of 
the  Churches"  as  distinguished  from  "the  sub- 
jection of  all  parish  churches  to  their  cathe- 
drals," as  in  England.  It  is  further  urged, 
that  in  any  association  of  Churches,  each 
Church  retains  "every  power  that  need  not  be 
delegated  for  the  good  of  the  whole."  The 
importance  of  these  principles,  and  their  bear- 
ing on  the  questions  involved,  will  be  seen 
later  on  in  this  discussion.  In  passing,  refer- 
ence is  made  to  the  absence  of  any  provision  for 
the  support  of  the  "superior  order  of  clergy," 
and  consequently  it  is  suggested  that  "the 
duty  assigned  to  that  order,  ought  not  mate- 
rially to  interfere  with  their  employments  in 
the  station  of  parochial  clergy."  The  result 
of  this  combination  of  the  exercise  of  the 
Episcopal  office  with  the  duties  and  labors  of 
the  parish  priest,  would,  in  the  judgment  of 
the  writer,  involve  the  limitation  of  the  terri- 
tory assigned  to  each  Bishop.  As  the  writer 
expresses  it,  "The  superintendence  of  each 
will  therefore  be  confined  to  a  small  district 
—  a  favorite  idea  with  all  moderate  Episco- 
palians." 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     25 

In  the  third  chapter  of  this  remarkable  pam- 
phlet, the  author  offers  a  "sketch  of  a  frame 
of  government."     It  is  as  follows: 

"As  the  Churches  in  question  extend  over  an 
immense  space  of  country,  it  can  never  be  ex- 
pected, that  representatives  from  each  Church 
should  assemble  in  one  place;  it  will  be  more 
convenient  for  them  to  associate  in  small  dis- 
tricts, from  which  representatives  may  be  sent  to 
three  different  bodies,  the  continent  being  sup- 
posed to  be  divided  into  that  number  of  larger 
districts.  From  these  may  be  elected  a  body 
representing  the  whole. 

''In  each  smaller  district,  there  should  be 
elected  a  general  vestry  or  convention,  consist- 
ing of  a  convenient  number  (the  minister  to  be 
one)  from  the  vestry  or  congregation  of  each 
Church,  or  of  every  two  or  more  Churches,  ac- 
cording to  their  respective  ability  of  supporting  a 
minister.  They  should  elect  a  clergyman  their 
permanent  president,  who,  in  conjunction  with 
other  clergymen,  to  be  also  appointed  by  this 
body,  may  exercise  such  powers  as  are  purely  spir- 
itual, particularly  that  of  admitting  to  the  min- 
istry; the  presiding  clergyman  and  others  to  be 
liable  to  be  deprived  for  just  causes,  by  a  fair 
process,  and  under  reasonable  laws;  meetings  to 
be  held  as  often  as  occasion  may  require. 


26  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

"The  assemblies  in  the  three  larger  districts 
may  consist  of  a  convenient  number  of  members, 
sent  from  each  of  the  smaller  districts  severally 
within  their  bounds,  equally  composed  of  clergy 
and  laity,  and  voted  for  by  those  orders  promis- 
cuously; the  presiding  clergyman  to  be  always 
one,  and  these  bodies  to  meet  once  in  every  year. 

"The  continental  representative  body  may  con- 
sist of  a  convenient  number  from  each  of  the 
larger  districts,  formed  equally  of  clergy  and  laity, 
and  among  the  clergy,  formed  equally  of  presiding 
ministers  and  others;  to  meet  statedly  once  in 
three  years.  The  use  of  this,  and  the  preceding 
representative  bodies,  is  to  make  such  regulations, 
and  receive  appeals  in  such  matters  only  as  shall 
be  judged  necessary  for  their  continuing  one 
religious  communion." 

We  have  here  laid  down  in  clear  and  im- 
mutable language,  the  frame -work  of  our 
ecclesiastical  government  as  it  appeared  to 
the  prophetic  vision  of  the  young  incumbent 
of  the  united  congregations  of  Christ  Church 
and  St.  Peter's,  Philadelphia.  Sitting  in  that 
humble  study,  where  all  these  schemes  were 
thought  out  and  carefully  weighed,  there  arose 
before  the  mind  of  this  seer  of  God  the  glo- 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     27 

rious  fabric  of  our  Jerusalem  in  a  majesty 
and  completeness  yet,  after  a  century  of 
growth  and  development,  to  be  fully  realized. 
The  parish,  the  diocese,  the  province,  the 
national  Church,  all  are  here;  the  priest  and 
people  deliberating  in  congregation  or  vestry; 
the  associated  congregations  and  clergy  meet- 
ing in  state  or  diocesan  synod,  the  proctors  of 
the  clergy  and  the  representatives  of  the  laity 
of  the  associated,  confederated  dioceses 
assembled  in  provincial  synods,  and  the  great 
continental  representation  of  Bishops,  clergy 
and  laity  gathering  in  the  national  Council, 
the  General  Convention  of  the  American 
Church,  covering  the  entire  domain  of  the 
United  States  and  at  once  national,  inde- 
pendent, Catholic:  —  ah!  it  was  a  revelation 
from  above  that  filled  the  heart  and  inspired 
both  the  mind  and  pen  of  William  White  to 
grasp  and  record  so  fair  a  vision, — our  New 
Jerusalem  descending  in  its  beauty  from  the 
hand  of  God! 

In  addition  to  these  outlines  of  a  frame  of 
Church  government,  the  writer  proposed  the 
exaction     of    "an    acknowledgment     of     the 


28  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

scriptures  as  a  rule  of  faith  and  life,"  in  lieu  of 
the  subscription  to  the  XXXIX.  Articles  de- 
manded in  the  mother  Church.  To  this  might 
be  added  "some  general  sanction"  of  the 
articles  "so  as  to  adopt  their  leading  sense" 
without  "exacting  entire  uniformity  of  senti- 
ment." In  respect  to  divine  worship,  it  was 
wisely  urged  that  "the  power  of  making 
necessary  and  convenient  alterations  in  the 
service  of  the  Church"  should  be  "used  with 
great  moderation."  In  regard  to  discipline,  it 
is  suggested  as,  "perhaps"  "sufficient,  if  an 
immoral  life  were  followed  by  exclusion  from 
the  sacrament  and  ecclesiastical  employment." 
The  chapter  concludes  with  these  words:  "In 
the  preceding  pages,  the  idea  of  superintend- 
ing ministers  has  been  introduced;  but  not  a 
word  has  been  said  of  the  succession  supposed 
necessary  to  constitute  the  Episcopal  charac- 
ter; and  this  has  been  on  purpose  postponed, 
as  demanding  a  more  minute  discussion." 

We  shall  recur  again  and  again  to  the 
remarkable  power  of  forecasting  the  future 
needs  and  purposes  of  the  Church  in  the 
United  States,  shown  by  the  young  and  com- 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     29 

paratively  inexperienced  author  of  The  Case 
of  the  Episcopal  Churches  Considered.  Al- 
ready we  have  seen  clearly  indicated  in  the 
chapters  of  this  pamphlet  of  a  score  or  more 
pages,  the  autonomy  and  essential  unity  of  the 
Episcopal  Churches  in  the  respective  states, 
and  the  possession  of  those  qualities  and  pow- 
ers constituting  the  several  Episcopal  Churches 
a  national,  American  Church,  the  independ- 
ence of  this  national  Church  of  any  foreign 
jurisdiction,  the  separation  of  the  temporal 
and  spiritual  power,  the  inclusion  of  the  laity 
in  the  legislation  and  government  of  the 
Church,  the  choice  by  the  people  of  their  spir- 
itual teachers  and  rulers  of  every  grade,  the 
equality  of  parishes  and  congregations,  and 
the  retention  by  the  local,  state  Church — the 
"one  common  flock  subject  to  a  Bishop"  and 
his  presbyters,  of  all  power  not  delegated  for 
the  good  of  the  whole;  and  the  complex 
representative  system  of  organization,  dio- 
cesan, provincial,  general  —  providing  for 
government,  self-perpetuation  and  the  due 
exercise  of  each  individual,  as  well  as  every 
collective,  right  and  power.      There  was  now 


30  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

to  be  met  the  gravest  difficulty  of  all,  the 
continuance  of  Episcopacy  when,  humanly 
speaking,  the  Episcopal  order  and  office  were 
not  to  be  had.  Reviewing  the  experiment 
proposed  when  Providentially  all  obstacles  to 
the  introduction  of  a  valid  Episcopate  had 
been  surmounted,  Bishop  White  in  1807  ex~ 
presses  his  firm  conviction  "that  under  the 
state  of  things  contemplated,  some  such 
expedient  as  that  proposed  must  have  been 
resorted  to;"  while  at  the  same  time  acknowl- 
edging that  "had  the  proposal  been  delayed 
a  little  longer,  the  happy  change  of  prospects 
would  have  prevented  the  appearance  of  the 
pamphlet,  unless  with  considerable  altera- 
tions." 

Assuming  "that  the  succession  cannot  at 
present  be  obtained;" — and  that  "from  the 
parent  Church  most  unquestionably  it  cannot; 
whether  from  any,  is  presumed  to  be  more 
than  we  can  at  present  be  informed;"  the 
writer  proposes  "to  include  in  the  proposed 
form  of  government,  a  general  approbation  of 
Episcopacy,  and  a  declaration  of  an  intention 
to  procure  the  succession  as  soon  as  conven- 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     31 

iently  may  be."  In  the  mean  time,  the  writer 
suggested  the  adoption  of  the  plan  of  "or- 
ganizing the  Church  by  the  appointment  of 
superintendents  with  powers  similar  to  those 
of  Bishops,"  but  "without  waiting  for  the 
succession." 

With  the  discussion  of  the  question  whether 
"the  dropping  of  the  succession  even  for  a 
time  would  be  a  departure  from  the  principles 
of  the  Church  of  England"  which  follows,  oc- 
cupying in  fact  the  remaining  pages  of  The 
Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches  Considered, 
we  are  not  specially  concerned.  The  argu- 
ment proceeds  on  the  ground  of  necessity — 
"that  ordination  by  Bishops  cannot  be  had." 
It  is  "the  exigence  of  necessity"  that  our 
writer  pleads,  quoting  the  judicious  Hooker's 
language  and  arguments  in  support  of  these 
words.  The  "necessity  of  the  present  times" 
is  all  that  is  urged  by  the  writer  of  The 
Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches  Considered. 
The  query  is  raised  "whether  Episcopalians 
will  not  be  thought  scarcely  deserving  the 
name  of  Christians,  should  they,  rather  than 
consent    to    a   temporary  deviation,   abandon 


32  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

every  ordinance  of  positive  and  divine  ap- 
pointment." The  answer  of  the  writer  is, 
that,  as  he  conceives,  "it  will  not  be  difficult 
to  prove  that  a  temporary  departure  from 
Episcopacy  in  the  present  instance  would  be 
warranted  by  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  of 
England,"  "by  her  practice,  and  by  the  prin- 
ciples on  which  Episcopal  government  is 
asserted."  The  distinction  is  carefully  made 
"between  cases  where  the  necessity  is  real, 
and  those  where  Episcopacy  had  been  will- 
ingly and  expressly  rejected,  as  by  the  people 
of  Scotland  and  the  English  dissenters." 

There  can  be  no  question  as  to  the  views  of 
William  White  at  this  period  of  his  life  and 
as  expressed  in  this  memorable  pamphlet. 
His  opinions  were  those  of  moderate  Church- 
men who  laid  little  stress  upon  the  "divine 
right"  of  Episcopacy,  but  were  ready  to  "ven- 
erate and  prefer  that  form"  of  Church  govern- 
ment "as  the  most  ancient  and  eligible." 
Nor  was  William  White  alone  in  holding  these 
sentiments.  His  own  statement,  which  we 
quote,  is  undoubtedly  correct  as  to  the  opin- 
ion of  his  fellow  Churchmen  in  the  Middle  and 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     33 

Southern  States.  "This  the  author  believes 
to  be  the  sentiment  of  the  great  body  of  Epis- 
copalians in  America;  in  which  respect  they 
have  in  their  favor,  unquestionably,  the  sense 
of  the  Church  of  England,  and,  as  he  believes, 
the  opinions  of  her  most  distinguished  prel- 
ates, for  piety,  virtue,  and  abilities."  That 
with  further  study  and  added  years  of  expe- 
rience and  investigation,  his  views  of  the 
obligation  of  the  threefold  ministry  and  the 
historic  Episcopate  strengthened,  is  equally 
certain.  It  is  more  than  probable  that  at 
this  peculiar  juncture  of  affairs  when  The 
Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches  Considered 
appeared,  the  moderate  views  of  the  writer 
and  the  singularly  temperate  and  apposite 
citations  from  acknowledged  authorities  with 
which  he  enforced  his  opinions  went  far  to 
allay  popular  prejudices  and  correct  unreason- 
able misconceptions,  which  else  might  have 
seriously  hindered  the  revival  and  organiza- 
tion of  the  American  Church.  It  must  be 
conceded  that  at  the  time  of  the  appearance 
of  this  pamphlet,  and  in  view  of  the  existing 
state  of  public  and  ecclesiastical  affairs,  any 
3 


34  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

proposition  for  the  organization  and  perpet- 
uation of  a  Church  whose  very  name  was  a 
reproach  and  whose  recourse  to  English  prel- 
ates for  its  power  to  perpetuate  its  ministry, 
could  not  fail  to  be  misunderstood  and  con- 
sequently misrepresented,  must  be  both  con- 
ciliatory in  tone  and  free  from  advocacy  of 
disputed  or  apparently  arrogant  claims.  The 
student  of  the  history  of  the  period  directly 
preceding  the  Revolution,  is  well  aware  of 
the  bitter  opposition  excited  by  the  efforts 
of  the  clergy  of  the  New  England  States  and 
New  York  and  New  Jersey,  with  the  coun- 
tenance of  a  few  of  their  brethren  at  the 
southward,  to  secure  the  appointment  of 
Bishops  for  America.  We  have  the  testi- 
mony of  no  less  an  authority  than  Samuel 
Adams,  that  this  proposition  was  one  of  the 
moving  causes  of  the  war  for  independence. 
Wisely,  then,  did  William  White,  in  meeting 
the  assertion  "that  the  very  name  of 
'Bishop'  is  offensive,"  concede  the  point  and 
say,  "if  so,  change  it  for  another;  let  the 
superior  clergyman  be  a  president,   a  super- 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     35 

intendent,  or,  in  plain  English,  and  accord- 
ing to  the  literal  translation  of  the  original, 
an  overseer."  The  sturdy  common-sense  of 
the  writer  could  not  but  accompany  this 
concession  to  unreasoning  and  obstinate 
opposers  by  adding: — "However,  if  names 
are  to  be  reprobated  because  the  powers 
annexed  to  them  have  been  abused,  there  are 
few  appropriated  to  either  civil  or  ecclesias- 
tical distinctions  which  would  retain  their 
places  in  our  catalogue."  The  pamphlet,  we 
need  not  say,  was  written,  not  as  a  literary 
effort,  but  under  a  deep  sense  of  the  gravity 
of  the  questions  it  discussed.  Its  earnest 
tone  thus  finds  expression:  "Are  the  ac- 
knowledged ordinances  of  Christ's  holy 
religion  to  be  suspended  for  years,  perhaps 
as  long  as  the  present  generation  shall  con- 
tinue, out  of  delicacy  to  a  disputed  point,  and 
that  relating  only  to  externals?"  It  proceeds 
with  fervor,  —  "All  the  obligations  of  con- 
formity to  the  Divine  ordinances,  all  the  argu- 
ments which  prove  the  connection  between 
public  worship  and  the   morals  of   a  people, 


36  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

combine  to  urge  the  adopting  some  speedy 
measures  to  provide  for  the  public  ministry 
in  these  Churches."  All  this  is  certainly  no 
more  radical  than  the  language  of  Hooker,  in 
his  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  (Book  vii.,  p.  14,) 
which  White  himself  quotes  with  full  ap- 
proval: "When  the  exigence  of  necessity 
doth  constrain  to  leave  the  usual  ways  of  the 
Church,  which  otherwise  we  would  willingly 
keep;  when  the  Church  must  needs  have  some 
ordained,  and  neither  hath,  nor  can  have  pos- 
sibly, a  Bishop  to  ordain;  in  case  of  such 
necessity,  the  law  of  God  hath  oftentimes  and 
may  give  place;  and  therefore,  we  are  not, 
simply  and  without  exception,  to  urge  a  lineal 
descent  of  power  from  the  apostles  by  con- 
tinued succession,  in  every  effectual  ordina- 
tion." It  was  provided  in  case  the  measures 
proposed  were  temporarily  adopted  "and  the 
Episcopal  succession  afterwards  obtained," 
that  any  supposed  imperfections  of  the  pro- 
posed intermediate  ordinations  might,  if  it 
were  judged  proper,  be  supplied  without 
acknowledging  their  nullity,  by  a  conditional 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     37 

ordination  resembling  that  of  conditional  bap- 
tism in  the  liturgy."*  The  Case  of  the  Epis- 
copal Churches  Considered  concludes  with  the 
following  statement  and  appeal: — ''The  great 
majority  of  Episcopalians,  believing  that 
their  faith  and  worship  are  rational  and 
Scriptural,  have  no  doubt  of  their  being  sup- 
ported independent  of  state  establishments; 
nay,  it  is  presumed  there  are  many,  who, 
while  they  sincerely  love  their  fellow-Chris- 
tians of  every  denomination,  knowing  (as  one 
of  their  prayers  expresses)  that  the  'body  of 
Christ'  comprehends  'the  blessed  company  of 
all  faithful  people,'  are  more  especially  at- 
tached to  their  own  mode  of  worship,  perhaps 
from  education,  but  as  they  conceive  from  its 
being  most  agreeable  to  reason  and  Scripture, 
and  its  most  nearly  resembling  the  pattern 
of  the  purest  ages  of  the  Church.  On  the 
consciences  of  such  above  all  others,  may  be 
pressed  the  obligation  of  adopting  speedy  and 

*  White  enforces  this  proposition  by  adding  these  words : — 

"The  above  was  an  expedient  proposed  by  Archbishop 

Tillotson,  Bishops  Patrick,  Stillingfleet,  and  others,  at  the 

Revolution,  and  had  actually  been  practiced  in  Ireland  by 

Archbishop  Bramhall." 


38  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

decisive  measures  to  prevent  their  being  scat- 
tered 'like  sheep  without  a  shepherd,'  and  to 
continue  the  use  of  that  form  of  divine  ser- 
vice, which  they  believe  to  be  worshipping 
the  Lord  in  the  beauty  of  holiness." 

To  the  principles  set  forth  in  this  pamphlet, 
Bishop  White  clung  with  characteristic  con- 
sistency to  the  latest  years  of  his  long  and 
honored  life.  In  a  note  appended  to  a  letter 
addressed  to  Bishop  Hobart,  under  date  of 
December  21,  1830,  he  thus  alludes  to  this 
production  of  his  youth:  — 

In  agreement  with  the  sentiments  expressed  in 
this  pamphlet,  I  am  still  of  the  opinion  that  in  an 
exigency  in  which  a  duly  authorized  Ministry  can- 
not be  obtained,  the  paramount  duty  of  preaching 
the  Gospel,  and  the  worshipping  of  God  on  the 
terms  of  the  Christian  Covenant,  should  go  on  in 
the  best  manner  which  circumstances  permit.  In 
regard  to  Episcopacy,  I  think  that  it  should  be 
sustained  in  the  government  of  the  Church  from 
the  time  of  the  Apostles,  but  without  criminating 
the  ministry  of  other  Churches,  as  is  the  course 
taken  by  the  Church  of  England.* 

*  Referring  to  this  publication,  Dr.  Bird  Wilson,  in  his 
Memoir  of  Bishop  White,  thus  proceeds :  — 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     39 

The  impression  produced  by  the  appearance 
of  The  Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches  Con- 
sidered was  profound.  The  breadth  and  com- 
prehensiveness of  its  suggestions,  and  the 
grave  importance  of  the  measures  it  proposed, 
together  with  the  soberness  of  judgment  and 
the  unfailing  courtesy  and  consideration  for 
the  views  of  others  it  displayed,  compelled  a 
hearing  even  for  those  proposals  happily  ren- 
dered unnecessary  by  the  prospect  of  peace. 
The  reception  of  the  pamphlet  at  the  North 

"  Before  his  visit  to  England  for  consecration,  he  (the 
Bishop-elect)  knew  that  his  pamphlet  had  been  in  the  hands 
of  the  Archbishop  of  York,  a  predecessor  of  the  prelate 
who  assisted  at  his  consecration.  It  had  been  enclosed  also 
to  Mr.  Adams,  the  American  minister,  when  the  address 
of  the  Convention  of  1785  to  the  Archbishops  and  Bishops 
of  England  was  officially  sent  to  him,  and  was  delivered  by 
him  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  Dr.  Moore.  The 
latter  did  not  express  any  dissatisfaction  with  the  pamphlet, 
or  with  the  author  on  its  account;  nor  has  any  other  prel- 
ate, so  far  as  is  known.  After  the  publication  of  it,  a  copy 
was  sent  to  Dr.  (afterwards  Bishop)  Provoost,  at  Dr. 
White's  desire,  by  Mr.  Duane,  then  in  Congress.  This  pro- 
duced a  letter  from  that  gentleman  to  Mr.  Duane,  approba- 
tory of  the  pamphlet,  and  mentioning  some  facts  which  the 
author  thought  much  to  the  purpose  of  the  main  object  of 
it."     Letter  to  Bishop  Hobart  of  October  77,  1803. 


40  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

is  a  matter  of  record.  A  few  months  after  its 
appearance,  ten  of  the  clergy  of  Connecticut 
assembled  in  convocation  at  Woodbury,  and 
after  making  choice  of  Samuel  Seabury  to  go 
abroad  for  consecration  as  their  bishop,  gave 
to  what  was  already  known  as  ''the  Philadel- 
phia plan"  a  patient  and  careful  considera- 
tion. Without  communicating  the  moment- 
ous action  they  had  taken  towards  solving  the 
very  problem  under  discussion,  —  for  this  they 
kept  as  "a  profound  secret  even  from  their 
most  intimate  friends  of  the  laity,"* — "the 
clergy  of  Connecticut"  empowered  their  secre- 
tary, the  Rev.  Abraham  Jarvis,t  to  address 
to  Dr.  White  in  their  name  a  letter  of  remon- 
strance. This  letter  Dr.  White  has  given  in 
full  in  the  appendix  to  his  Memoirs  of  the 
Church.%  It  admits  "that  the  chain  which 
connected  this  with  the  mother-Church  is 
broken;"  and  that  "the  American   Church  is 


*  Vide  Rev.  Daniel  Fogg's  letter  to  the  Rev.  Samuel 
Parker,  printed  in  Perry's  Historical  Notes  and  Documents, 
p.  214. 

•j-  Afterwards  the  second  Bishop  of  Connecticut. 

X  Second  edition,  pp.  282-286. 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     41 

now   left  to   stand   in   its   own   strength."     It 
deprecates    "as   premature  and  of  dangerous 
consequence"  any  proposal   to   enter   upon  a 
"change     in    its    regulations"    till    there    are 
"resident  bishops  (if  they  can  be  obtained)  to 
assist"   in   effecting   the    "new   union    in    the 
American    Church"    which    should    take    the 
place  of  the  old  connection  with  Great  Britain. 
It  assails  with  warmth  the  proposition  to  effect 
an  organization  and  a  "frame  of  government" 
without  the  presence  of  the  Episcopal  order. 
It  regards  "the  general  approbation  of  Epis- 
copacy," and  "the  declaration  of  an  intention 
to  procure  the  succession  as  soon  as  conven- 
iently may  be,"  as  occasioned  rather  by  policy 
than  principle.      It  argues  that  the  author  of 
The  Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches   Consid- 
ered would  not  have  ' '  proposed  to  set  up  the 
ministry  without  waiting  for  the  succession," 
if  he  had  "believed  the  Episcopal  superiority 
to  be  an  ordinance  of  Christ,  with  the  exclu- 
sive authority  of  ordination  and  government." 
It  claims  that  "an  Episcopal  Church   without 
Episcopacy,"  if  not  "a  contradiction  in  terms," 
would  certainly  be  "a  new   thing  under  the 


42  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

sun."  It  proceeds  to  discuss  the  concessions 
with  respect  to  Presbyterian  ordination  made 
by  "the  venerable  Hooker"  and  others,  and 
to  combat  the  plea  of  "necessity,"  claiming 
that  the  succession  is  "as  essential  to  the 
Church  as  the  sacraments."  It  argues  that 
"it  has  been  the  constant  opinion  of  our 
Church  in  England  and  here,  that  the  Episco- 
pal superiority  is  an  ordinance  of  Christ," 
and  it  appeals  to  "the  uniform  practice  of  the 
whole  American  Church,  for  near  a  century,  in 
sending  their  candidates  three  thousand  miles 
for  Holy  Orders,"  as  "more  than  a  presump- 
tive proof  that  the  Church  here"  has  ever  held 
"this  opinion."  The  instances  of  occasional 
toleration  of  Presbyterian  ordination  by  the 
Church,  it  is  urged,  have  been  explained  and 
"answered  again  and  again."  It  submits  that 
"our  Church  has  ever  believed  bishops  to 
have  the  sole  right  of  ordination  and  govern- 
ment, and  that  this  regimen  was  appointed 
by  Christ  Himself,"  and  adds  that  those  who 
advocate  even  a  "temporary  departure"  from 
this  rule,  and  thus  "set  aside  the  ordinance  of 
Christ    for    conveniency,"    "scarcely    deserve 


Cofistitution  of  the  Americcui  Church.     43 

the  name  of  Christians. "  It  argues  that  the  plea 
of  necessity  cannot  be  urged  "with  any  pro- 
priety" till  "we  have  tried  to  obtain  an  Epis- 
copate, and  have  been  rejected."  It  takes  the 
ground  that  the  present  time  offers  "a  more 
favorable  opportunity  for  the  introduction  of 
Bishops  than  this  country  has  before  seen.'' 
They  will  have  "no  civil  authority."  They 
will  be  "purely  ecclesiastics."  It  believes 
"that  the  whole  civil  authority  upon  the  con- 
tinent (should  their  assistance  be  needed)  will 
unite  their  influence  with  the  Church  to  pro- 
cure an  office  so  essential  to  it.  It  adds  its 
conviction  that  the  Bishops  in  England  will 
not  be  "so  totally  lost  to  a  sense  of  their 
duty,  and  to  the  real  wants  of  their  brethren 
in  the  Episcopal  Church  here,  as  to  refuse  to 
ordain  Bishops  to  preside  over  us,  when  a 
proper  application  shall  be  made  to  them  for 
it."  It  further  asserts  that  "the  present"  is 
"a  favorable  opportunity  for  such  an  applica- 
tion." In  this  "frank  and  brotherly  way"  the 
Connecticut  clergy  sought  to  express  their 
"opinion  of  the  mistaken  and  dangerous  ten- 
dency of  the  pamphlet."     The  letter  concludes 


44  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

with  these  words:  —  "We  fear,  should  the 
scheme  of  it  be  carried  into  execution  in  the 
Southern  States,  it  will  create  divisions  in  the 
Church  at  a  time  when  its  whole  strength  de- 
pends upon  its  unity:  for  we  know  it  is  totally 
abhorrent  from  the  principles  of  the  Church 
in  the  Northern  States,  and  are  fully  con- 
vinced they  will  never  submit  to  it.  And 
indeed,  should  we  consent  to  a  temporary 
departure  from  Episcopacy,  there  would  be 
very  little  propriety  in  asking  for  it  after- 
wards, and  as  little  reason  ever  to  expect  it 
in  America.  Let  us  all  then  unite  as  one 
man  to  improve  this  favorable  opportunity,  to 
procure  an  object  so  desirable  and  so  essential 
to  the  Church." 

Bishop  White  in  his  Memoirs  of  the 
Church  *  refers  to  this  communication  from 
the  clergy  of  Connecticut  as  "mistaking  the 
object"  of  "the  Philadelphia  plan."  "There 
pervades"  the  Connecticut  letter,  writes 
Bishop  White,  "the  defect  of  not  distinguish- 
ing between  the  then  state  of  public  concerns 
and  as  they  stood  when    the    pamphlet    was 

*  Second  edition,  p.  90. 


Constitution  of  tJie  American  Church.     45 

published.  Nearly  a  year,  and  the  acknowl- 
edgment of  independence  had  intervened. 
The  intimation  in  the  letter,  that  the  author 
of  the  pamphlet  regarded  Episcopacy  no  fur- 
ther than  that,  for  the  satisfying  of  the  people, 
the  prospect  was  to  be  held  out  of  obtaining 
it  at  a  future  time,  would  have  been  wounding 
to  his  feelings,  had  his  brethren  of  Connecti- 
cut possessed  a  knowledge  of  him.  They 
were  at  that  time  strangers  to  one  another. 
The  intimated  suspicion  was  then  resolved, 
and  is  now  resolved  by  him  on  whom  it  fell, 
into  a  difference  of  apprehension  as  to  the 
means  of  accomplishing  the  same  end." 

There  can  be  little  doubt,  however,  from 
letters  written  by  the  Rev.  Charles  Inglis, 
D.  D.,  afterwards  first  Bishop  of  Nova  Scotia, 
who  was  then  about  starting  for  England,  to 
Dr.  White,  that  suspicions  arising  from  the 
perusal  of  the  pamphlet  which  detailed  "the 
Philadelphia  plan"  had  prevented  an  invita- 
tion to  White,  and  the  clergy  still  further  to 
the  southward,  to  unite  in  the  efforts  made  at 
this  meeting  at  Woodbury  for  obtaining  an 
American  Episcopate,  as  well  as  in  those  con- 


46  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

sultations  in  New  York  out  of  which  grew  the 
establishment  of  the  see  of  Nova  Scotia  and 
the  founding  of  King's  College  at  Windsor,  in 
the  same  province. 

Elsewhere  than  at  the  North  The  Case  of 
the  Episcopal  Churches  Considered  became 
the  manifesto  of  those  who  were  desirous  of 
the  organization  and  perpetuation  of  the 
Church  on  principles  akin  to  those  of  the 
American  revolution  and  the  independence  of 
the  nation  of  all  foreign  control. 

The  ideas  and  principles,  the  arguments, 
the  conclusions,  the  very  language  of  this  able 
ecclesiastical  "state  paper,"  are  reproduced  at 
each  meeting  for  organization,  and  in  each 
declaration  of  "fundamental  principles"  set 
forth  by  the  various  assemblies  of  the  clergy 
and  laity,  in  the  Middle  and  Southern  States. 
The  young  clergyman  of  Philadelphia  was 
already  a  marked  man.  The  gentleness  and 
urbanity  of  his  manners,  and  his  abundant  in- 
tellectual qualifications  and  attainments,  his 
habits  of  calm  and  deep  reflection,  his  singu- 
lar caution  in  decision  and  action,  his  sound 
judgment,  together  with  the  possession  of  ex- 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     47 

tensive,  varied  and  accurate  information  not 
only  as  to  the  principles  of  government  both 
civil  and  ecclesiastical,  but  of  the  particulars 
of  ecclesiastical  law  and  primitive  precedent, 
together  with  the  well-known  moderation  of 
his  own  views  in  the  matters  of  Church  order 
and  discipline;  all  combined  to  point  him  out 
as  one  fitted  to  act  as  a  mediator  between  the 
clergy  of  the  East,  whose  Churchmanship  was 
pronounced  and  aggressive,  and  the  clergy  of 
the  South,  where  great  laxity  of  opinion  even 
on  fundamental  points  of  doctrine  and  order, 
obtained.  With  these  advantages  and  with 
the  disposition  to  spend  and  be  spent  in  the 
behalf  of  the  Church,  he  gave  himself  to  the 
work  of  securing  the  union  of  all  the  Epis- 
copal Churches  in  the  United  States  under  a 
common  ecclesiastical  constitution  and  fully 
equipped  as  an  autonomous  national  Church 
for  self-perpetuation  and  aggressive  work. 

The  Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches  Con- 
sidered, and  the  letter  of  the  Connecticut 
clergy  in  reply  to  its  proposals  and  conclu- 
sions, brought  prominently  into  view  the  two 
rival  plans  for  effecting  the  organization  and 


48  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

perfecting  of  the  American  Church.  That  of 
the  young  Philadelphia  rector  was  the  associ- 
ation of  the  individual  local  Churches  in  small 
districts,  in  each  of  which  there  should  be  a 
convention  composed  of  deputies  chosen  by 
the  vestries  or  congregations  of  the  several 
Churches  within  its  limits,  the  minister  of 
each  congregation  being  a  member  of  the 
convention,  while  the  whole  Church  through- 
out the  land  should  have  its  representative 
body  of  clergy  and  laity  meeting  triennially 
and  being  empowered  to  make  such  'regula- 
tions and  enact  such  laws  and  decisions  as 
shall  be  judged  requisite  for  the  common 
good.  This  plan  presupposed  immediate  ac- 
tion without  waiting  for  the  superior  order  of 
the  ministry  which  was  to  be  obtained,  after 
the  general  organization  was  effected,  by  the 
united  appeal  of  an  united  Church  complete, 
save  with  respect  to  its  head,  asking  of  the 
parent  Church  the  supply  of  this  acknowl- 
edged need. 

The  other  plan  contemplated  as  the  initial 
step  in  the  direction  of  organization,  the  ob- 
taining, first  of  all,  a  Bishop,  under  whose  au- 


Constitution  of  tJie  American  Church.     49 

thority  and  guidance  alone,  it  was  conceived, 
could  any  measures  for  the  completion  of  the 
system  of  the  Church  be  properly  taken. 

The  objects  and  ends  in  view  in  each  case 
were  the  same.  White  deemed  it  wiser  to 
collect  and  unite  the  scattered  adherents  of 
the  Church  that  there  might  be  a  body  over 
which  the  spiritual  head,  when  obtained, 
might  be  placed,  than  to  seek  first  a  Bishop, 
who,  if  obtained,  might  find  himself  without  a 
flock.  The  necessity  for  a  resort  to  a  tem- 
porary expedient  for  the  historic  Episcopate 
being  removed  through  the  acknowledgment 
by  Great  Britain  of  American  independence, 
the  union  of  the  scattered  Churchmen  and  the 
isolated  Churches  throughout  the  land  in  an 
application  to  the  English  hierarchy  for  the 
Episcopal  succession,  seemed  almost  a  matter 
of  necessity  if  the  end  desired  were  to  be  ob- 
tained. It  could  hardly  be  expected  that  the 
Bishops  of  the  mother  Church  would  pay  any 
regard  to  the  petition  or  the  action  of  unasso- 
ciated  individuals  in  a  matter  of  such  moment. 
The  rejection  in  England  of  Seabury's  appli- 
cation for  consecration,  although  supported 
4 


5<D  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

by  the  signatures  not  alone  of  the  Connecticut 
clergy,  but  also  of  those  of  New  York,  is  a 
proof  of  the  wisdom  of  this  conclusion.  As  it 
happened,  the  plans  and  purposes  of  each 
party  were  successful.  In  the  Providence  of 
God  the  one  scheme,  in  place  of  embarrassing, 
actually  furthered  the  other.  Neither  plan 
was  of  itself  alone  complete.  In  the  efforts 
for  organization  in  which  the  Churchmen  of 
the  Middle  and  Southern  States  engaged,  the 
principles  enunciated  in  The  Case  of  the  Epis- 
copal Churches  Considered  were  carefully  fol- 
lowed. The  union  of  the  laity  with  the 
clergy  in  conference  and  in  associated  effort 
for  the  organization  of  the  Episcopal  Churches 
in  the  respective  States,  commended  itself  to 
all  who  were  interested  in  the  perpetuation  of 
the  Church  and  secured  for  the  efforts  inau- 
gurated in  its  behalf  a  wide  approval  and  a 
generous  support.  As  early  as  November  9, 
1780,  clergymen  and  laymen  met  at  Chester- 
town,  Kent  County,  Maryland,  in  informal 
Convention,  for  the  purpose  of  petitioning  the 
General  Assembly  to  enact  a  bill  for  the  sup- 
port of  public  worship.      The  clergymen  were 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.      51 

three  in  number  and  were  the  Rev.  Samuel 
Keene,  rector  of  St.  Luke's,  Queen  Anne 
County;  the  celebrated  Dr.  William  Smith, 
formerly  Provost  of  the  College  and  Academy 
of  Philadelphia,  and  then  rector  of  Chester 
Parish,  Kent  County,  and  President  of  Wash- 
ington College;  and  the  Rev.  James  Jones 
Wilmer,  rector  of  Shrewsbury  Parish,  Kent 
County.  The  laymen  were  chiefly  vestrymen 
of  parishes  in  Kent  and  Queen  Anne  Coun- 
ties, in  all  twenty -four  in  number.  The 
object  in  assembling  appears  to  have  been 
simply  the  furtherance  of  the  petition  to  the 
Assembly  they  had  in  hand.  They  do  not 
seem  to  have  been  accredited  by  their  re- 
spective parishes,  and  yet  the  only  recorded 
action  of  this  meeting  gives  to  this  November 
Convention  in  Maryland,  in  the  year  of  grace 
1780,  an  interest  and  importance  all  will 
allow.  This  action  was  as  follows:  —  "On 
motion  of  the  Secretary  (Rev.  James  Jones 
Wilmer),  it  was  proposed  that  the  Church 
known  in  the  province  as  Protestant  be  called 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and  it  was 
so  adopted."     With  this   record  the  minutes 


52  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

of  the  meeting  end.  To  this  action  of  three 
Maryland  clergymen  and  the  assembled  ves- 
trymen of  the  parishes  of  two  Maryland 
Counties,  the  name  of  the  Church  borne  for  a 
hundred  years  is  due.*  It  is  evident  that  this 
union  of  clergymen  and  laymen  in  associated 
effort  was  not  for  ecclesiastical  organization, 
but  simply  for  the  accomplishment  and  legal- 
izing of  certain  matters  of  a  temporal  nature 
in  which  both  rectors  and  vestrymen  were 
concerned.  Consequently,  although  a  similar 
Convention  was  held  in  the  year  1781,  and 
again  in  1782  and  1783,  the  assembling  of  the 
clergy  as  incumbents  of  livings  and  the  laity 
as  vestrymen,  for  the  consideration  of  the 
temporal  affairs  of  their  respective  parishes, 
does  not  in  any  sense  contravene  the  claim  of 
Bishop  White  to  be  the  originator  of  the  idea 
of  uniting  the  clergy  and  laity  in  Conventions 
for  ecclesiastical  purposes.  As  we  shall  see 
later,  the  Philadelphia  rector  not  only  evolved 
the  theory  of  the  introduction  of  the  laity  into 
our  ecclesiastical  councils,  but  he  carried  his 

*  Vide  Perry's  History  of  the  American  Episcopal  Church, 
II.,  pp.  21,  22. 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     53 

plan  into  operation  and,  ''as  the  proposer  of 
the  measure,"  presided — a  fact  he  was  careful 
to  record  in  his  Memoirs  in  "the  first  ecclesi- 
astical assembly  in  any  of  the  States,  consist- 
ing partly  of  lay  members."*  Were  this  his 
only  claim  to  remembrance  and  fame,  the 
name  of  William  White  would  stand  among 
the  foremost  of  ecclesiastical  statesmen  and 
among  the  leaders  of  American  religious 
thought. 

The  earliest  attempts  at  ecclesiastical  or- 
ganization on  the  part  of  the  members  of  the 
Church  of  England  in  America  subsequent  to 
the  declaration  of  independence,  were  made 
in  Connecticut,  Pennsylvania,  and  Maryland, 
each  proceeding  from  ideas  totally  at  variance 
with  the  others  and  consequently  threatening 
for  a  time  to  cause  a  permanent  disruption 
of  the  American  Church. 

In  Connecticut,  early  in  the  spring  of 
1 783, t  ten  clergymen   met  in  Convocation  at 


*  Bishop  White's  Memoirs  of  the  Church,  2nd  ed.,  p.  86. 
De  Costa's  edition,  p.  94. 

I  Bishop  White  says  "in  March,  1783."  {Memoirs  of  the 
Church*  2nd  ed.,  p.  93).     We  may  reasonably  infer  from  the 


54  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

Woodbury  and,  as  the  first  step  towards  an 
organization,  made  choice  of  the  Rev.  Samuel 
Seabury,  D.  D.,  a  missionary  of  the  Venerable 
Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in 
Foreign  Parts,  as  their  Bishop -elect.*  The 
clergy  of  New  York  united  with  their  breth- 
ren of  Connecticut  in  their  approval  of  this 
act,  and  the  few  clergy  of  the  Church  in  New 
England  outside  of  the  limits  of  Connecticut, 
followed  with  kindly  sympathies  and  hearty 
prayers  the  indefatigable  Seabury  across  the 
ocean  on  his  difficult  and  doubtful  errand. 
Once  entered  upon  the  effort  to  secure  the 
Episcopate  as  the  foundation  of  the  Church, 
the  Connecticut  clergy  never  relaxed  their 
labors  till  the  end  was  gained. 

Undertaken  by  the  clergy  alone,  and  kept 
profoundly  secret  even  from  the  laity  who 
were   well -affected   toward   the   Church  both 


date  affixed  to  a  letter  addressed  by  the  Convocation  at 
Woodbury  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  White,  that  the  day  on  which 
this  choice  was  made  was  "  Lady  -  day,"  the  Feast  of  the 
Annunciation,  March  25,  1783.  Vide  White's  Memoirs,  p. 
286. 

*  Hawks'  and  Perry's  Church  Documents  —  Connecticut. 
II.,  pp.  211-219. 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     55 

from  motives  of  prudence  and  principle,  these 
measures  were  solely  concerned  with  the  se- 
lection of  a  Bishop  and  comprised  no  scheme 
for  the  organization  of  the  Church  or  the 
reform  of  the  liturgy.  It  is  evident  both 
from  the  remonstrance  addressed  to  the 
writer  and  from  the  action  actually  taken, 
that  the  Convocation  of  the  Connecticut 
clergy  at  Woodbury  on  the  Feast  of  the  An- 
nunciation, in  the  year  1783,  was  influenced  in 
their  debates  and  decisions  by  the  pamphlet 
entitled  The  Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches 
Considered.  It  is  far  from  unlikely  that  the 
determination  of  these  ten  clergymen  to  pro- 
ceed to  the  choice  of  a  Bishop,  and  the 
instructions  given  to  their  choice  to  seek  con- 
secration first  in  England  and,  if  refused,  to 
apply  for  it  in  Scotland,  were  intended  to 
make  clear  their  conviction  that  a  temporary 
departure  from  Episcopacy  on  the  plea  of 
necessity  was  not  warranted  by  the  existing 
state  of  affairs.  That  this  was  now  the  con- 
viction of  the  writer  of  the  pamphlet  in  ques- 
tion, they  evidently  were  not  aware.  The 
course    pursued    by    the    Connecticut    clergy 


56  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

could  not  have  been  taken  with  any  pros- 
pect of  success  had  not  the  negotiations  for 
peace  removed  the  necessity  contemplated  in 
White's  essay.  The  conservative  Churchmen 
of  Connecticut  were  yet  to  find,  in  the  author 
of  the  pamphlet  they  so  signally  reprobated, 
the  one  ally  through  whose  persistent  labor 
and  generous  self-forgetfulness  the  work  they 
had  undertaken  in  secret,  and  solely  in  obedi- 
ence to  the  dictates  of  principle  and  duty, 
was  finally  crowned  with  a  success  beyond 
their  fondest  hopes.  It  was  through  the  ex- 
ertions and  by  the  self-abnegation  of  William 
White  that  the  subsequent  union  of  the 
Churches  was  effected  and  the  first  Bishop  of 
Connecticut  became  the  first  Presiding  Bishop 
of  the  united  American  Church. 

The  step  once  taken,  there  was  no  looking 
back  on  the  part  of  these  ten  Connecticut 
priests.  Seabury,  despatched  across  the  ocean 
on  his  difficult  and  doubtful  errand  to  secure 
the  coveted  Episcopal  succession,  had  the  un- 
flagging sympathy  and  the  unfailing  support 
of  those  who  had  sent  him  on  his  mission. 
The   laity,   who    had    been    trained  to    "trust 


Constitution  of  tlie  American  Church.     57 

matters  purely  ecclesiastical  to  their  clergy,"* 
waited  the  result  with  no  attempt  or  desire  to 
interfere.  And  so  both  clergy  and  laity  con- 
sistently declined  to  unite  in  schemes  for 
organization,  or  the  formation  of  ecclesiastical 
constitutions,  or  the  consideration  of  altera- 
tions in  the  liturgy,  until  they  had  secured 
the  completeness  of  their  Church  government 
in  the  possession  of  a  valid  Episcopacy. 
Their  efforts  were  not  in  vain.  Denied  suc- 
cess in  England,  Seabury,  agreeably  to  the 
instructions  of  his  constituents,  turned  to 
Scotland  for  the  boon  he  desired,  and  on  the 
14th  of  November,  1784,  the  first  Bishop  of 
Connecticut  received  consecration  in  an  "up- 
per room,"  at  Aberdeen,  at  the  hands  of  the 
Primus  and  two  other  Bishops  of  the  Scottish 
Church,  t 


*  Vide  an  interesting  letter  from  the  Rev.  Abraham 
Beach  to  Rev.  Dr.  White,  reporting  the  result  of  a  visit  to 
the  meeting  of  the  Connecticut  Clergy  in  1784.  Perry's 
Historical  Notes  and  Documents  Illustrating  the  Organiza- 
tion of  the  Church  in  the  U.  6\,  appended  to  the  Reprinted 
Journals  of  Convention,  iii.,  12. 

I  Hawks'  and  Perry's  Church  Documents,  Connecticut, 
ii.,  247-254. 


58  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

In  Maryland,  where,  prior  to  the  war,  the 
Church  of  England  had  been  established  by 
law,  the  temporal  necessities  of  the  various 
parishes  induced  action  on  the  part  of  "a 
very  considerable  number  of  Vestries,  wholly 
in  their  lay  character,"  in  uniting  in  a  peti- 
tion to  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  to 
enact  a  law  providing  for  "the  support  of  the 
Christian  Religion."  The  passage  of  an  Act 
was  proposed  enabling  any  Vestry  and  Church 
Wardens,  "by  rates  on  the  pews,  from  time 
to  time,  or  otherwise,  *      to  repair  and 

uphold  the  Church  or  Chapel,  and  the  Church 
Yards  and  Burying  Grounds  of  the  same." 
The  consideration  of  this  Act  was  not  pressed 
during  the  war,  but  on  the  coming  of  peace, 
the  question  of  a  religious  establishment  was 
brought  before  the  Assembly  by  an  address 
from  the  Executive  warmly  commending  the 
provision  of  a  "public  support  for  the  Minis- 
ters of  the  Gospel."  A  copy  of  this  Address 
came  into  the  hands  of  a  number  of  the  clergy 
assembled  at  the  commencement  of  Washing- 
ton College  in  May,  1783.  These  clergymen, 
under  the  lead  of  the  celebrated  Dr.  William 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     59 

Smith,  then  President  of  Washington  College, 
at  once  took  measures  for  securing  "a  council 
or  consultation"  of  their  own  order  for  the 
purpose  of  considering,  to  quote  their  own 
language,  "what  alterations  might  be  neces- 
sary in  our  Liturgy;  and  how  our  Church 
might  be  organized,  and  a  succession  in  the 
Ministry  kept  up."  At  a  "meeting  or  Con- 
vention of  the  clergy,"  which,  with  the  per- 
mission of  the  Assembly,  was  held  at  Annap- 
olis in  pursuance  of  these  measures,  besides 
the  preparation  of  a  draft  of  an  Act  or  charter 
of  incorporation  to  be  submitted  to  the  As- 
sembly, "A  Declaration  of  certain  funda- 
mental rights  and  liberties  of  the  Prot.  Epis. 
Church  of  Maryland"  was  "unanimously 
agreed  upon  and  signed,  August  13,  1783." 
The  language  of  this  Declaration  of  funda- 
mental rights  and  liberties  is  as  follows: 

"Whereas  by  the  Constitution  and  form  of  gov- 
ernment of  this  State  all  persons  professing  the 
Christian  Religion  are  equally  entitled  to  protec- 
tion in  their  religious  liberty,  and  no  person  by 
any  law  (or  otherwise)  ought  to  be  molested  in  his 
person  or  estate  on  account  of  his  religious  per- 


60  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

suasion  or  profession,  or  for  his  religious  practice; 
unless  under  colour  of  religion,  any  man  shall  dis- 
turb the  good  order,  peace,  or  safety  of  the  State, 
or  shall  infringe  the  laws  of  morality,  or  injure 
others  in  their  natural,  civil  or  religious  rights; 
and  whereas  the  ecclesiastical  and  spiritual  inde- 
pendence of  the  different  religious  denominations, 
societies,  congregations  and  Churches  of  Chris- 
tians in  this  State  necessarily  follows  from,  or  is 
included  in,  their  civil  independence; — 

"Wherefore  we  the  clergy  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  of  Maryland,  (heretofore  de- 
nominated the  Church  of  England  as  by  law 
established),  with  all  duty  to  the  civil  authority 
of  the  State  and  with  all  love  and  good  will  to 
our  fellow  Christians  of  every  other  religious 
denomination,  do  hereby  declare,  make  known 
and  claim  the  following  as  certain  of  the  funda- 
mental rights  and  liberties  inherent  in  and  belong- 
ing to  the  said  Episcopal  Church,  not  only  of 
common  right  but  agreeably  to  the  express  words, 
spirit,  and  design  of  the  Constitution  and  form  of 
government  aforesaid,  viz: — 

"ist.  We  consider  it  as  the  undoubted  right  of 
the  said  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  in  common 
with  other  Christian  Churches  under  the  Ameri- 
can Revolution,  to  compleat  and  preserve  herself 


Constitution  of the  American  Church.     61 

as  an  entire  Church,  agreeably  to  her  antient 
usages  and  profession;  and  to  have  the  full  en- 
joyment and  free  exercise  of  those  purely  spiritual 
powers  which  are  essential  to  the  being  of  every 
Church  or  congregation  of  the  faithful;  and  which, 
being  derived  only  from  Christ  and  his  Apostles 
are  to  be  maintained  independent  of  every  foreign 
or  other  jurisdiction,  so  far  as  may  be  consistent 
with  the  civil  rights  of  society. 

"2nd.  That  ever  since  the  Reformation  it  hath 
been  the  received  doctrine  of  the  Church  whereof 
we  are  members  (and  which  by  the  Constitution 
of  this  State  is  entitled  to  the  perpetual  enjoyment 
of  certain  property  and  rights  under  the  denom- 
ination of  the  Church  of  England),  that  there  be 
these  three  orders  of  Ministers  in  Christ's  Church: 
Bishops,  Priests  and  Deacons,  and  that  an  Episco- 
pal ordination  and  commission  is  necessary  to  the 
valid  administration  of  the  Sacraments  and  the 
due  exercise  of  the  Ministerial  functions  in  the 
said  Church. 

"3rd.  That  without  calling  in  question,  or 
wishing  the  least  contest  with  any  other  Christian 
churches  or  societies  concerning  their  rights, 
modes  and  forms,  we  consider  and  declare  it  to 
be  an  essential  right  of  the  said  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  to  have  and  enjoy  the  continuance 


62  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

of  the  said  three  orders  of  Ministers  forever,  so 
far  as  concerns  matters  purely  spiritual,  and  that 
no  persons  in  the  character  of  Ministers,  except 
such  as  are  in  the  communion  of  the  said  Church 
and  duly  called  to  the  Ministry  by  regular  Epis- 
copal Ordination,  can  or  ought  to  be  admitted 
into  or  enjoy  any  of  the  Churches,  Chapels, 
Glebes  or  other  property  formerly  belonging  to 
the  Church  of  England  in  this  State,  and  which 
by  the  Constitution  and  form  of  government  is 
secured  to  the  said  Church  for  ever,  by  whatso- 
ever name  she,  the  said  Church,  or  her  superior 
order  of  Ministers  may  in  future  be  denominated. 
"4th.  That  as  it  is  the  right,  so  it  will  be  the 
duty,  of  the  said  Church,  when  duly  organized, 
constituted  and  represented  in  a  Synod  or  Con- 
vention of  the  different  Orders  of  her  Ministry 
and  people,  to  revise  her  liturgy,  forms  of  Prayer, 
and  publick  worship,  in  order  to  adapt  the  same 
to  the  late  Revolution,  and  other  local  circum- 
stances of  America,  which  it  is  humbly  conceived 
may  and  will  be  done  without  any  other  or  farther 
departure  from  the  venerable  Order  and  beautiful 
Forms  of  Worship  of  the  Church  from  whence  we 
sprung  than  may  be  found  expedient  in  the  change 
of  our  situation  from  a  daughter  to  a  sister 
Church." 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     63 

We  have  given  this  paper  in  full  in  view  of 
the  important  principles  in  enunciates.  In  its 
opening  sentence  we  find  the  first  public  as- 
sumption of  the  present  legal  title  of  "the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church."  It  affirms  "the 
ecclesiastical  and  spiritual  independence  of 
this  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  Maryland" 
as  necessarily  following,  and  included  in,  the 
civil  independence  of  the  State.  It  claims  for 
this  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  Maryland 
the  right  to  "preserve  herself  as  an  entire 
Church  agreeably  to  her  ancient  usages  and 
profession."  It  asserts  the  right  of  this 
Church  to  the  free  enjoyment  and  exercise  of 
her  "spiritual  power"  derived  "from  Christ 
and  the  Apostles,"  independently  of  "every 
foreign  or  other  jurisdiction,"  so  far  as  "con- 
sistent with  the  civil  rights  of  society."  It 
lays  down  the  principle  of  the  necessity  of 
"Episcopal  ordination  and  commission"  to  the 
"valid  administration  of  the  Sacraments  and 
the  due  exercise  of  the  Ministerial  functions 
in  the  said  Church."  It  claims  that  "the 
Ministry  by  regular  Episcopal  Ordination"  has 
the  sole  right  to  be  "admitted  into  or  enjoy 


64  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

any  of  the  Churches,  Chapels  or  other  prop- 
erty belonging  to  the  Church  of  England"  in 
Maryland.  It  asserts  for  the  Church  in  Mary- 
land the  right,  "when  duly  organized,  consti- 
tuted and  represented  in  a  Synod  or  Conven- 
tion of  her  Ministry  and  people,  to  revise  her 
liturgy,  forms  of  prayer  and  public  worship,  in 
order  to  adapt  the  same  to  the  late  revolution 
and  other  local  circumstances  of  America."  It 
deprecates  "any  other  or  farther  departure 
from  the  venerable  order  and  beautiful  forms 
of  worship"  of  the  mother  Church  "than  may 
be  found  expedient  in  the  change  of  situation 
from  that  of  a  daughter  to  a  sister  Church." 
In  this  important  declaration  of  rights  and 
liberties  we  cannot  fail  to  recognize  the  argu- 
ments, the  order  and  the  very  language  of 
The  Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches  Consid- 
ered. 

In  fact  this  Maryland  declaration,  while  in 
the  handwriting  as  well  as  in  the  style  of  the 
President  of  the  Convention,  the  celebrated 
Dr.  William  Smith,  reveals  from  first  to  last 
the  ideas  and  the  influence  of  William  White. 
There  were  not  a  score  of  clergymen  who  met 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     65 

in  Convention  at  Chestertown,  under  the  pres- 
idency of  Smith,  and  thus  laid  the  foundations 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  Mary- 
land. There  were  no  laymen  in  attendance 
at  this  meeting,  although  the  declaration  of 
rights  and  liberties  recognized  the  propriety 
of  admitting  the  "people"  as  well  as  the 
clergy  to  the  councils  of  the  Church,  as  sug- 
gested by  William  White.  It  was,  however,  at 
this  August  meeting  of  the  Maryland  clergy 
that  Dr.  Smith  was  chosen,  —  as  Thomas  John 
Claggett  writes  to  a  friend  a  few  days  after 
the  meeting,  —  "to  go  to  Europe  to  be  or- 
dained an  Antistes,  President  of  the  Clergy,  or 
Bishop  (if  that  name  does  not  hurt  your  feel- 
ings)." "He  will  probably  be  back  some  time 
next  spring,"  continues  the  writer,  little 
dreaming  that  he,  and  not  the  able  and  dis- 
tinguished President  of  Washington  College, 
would,  in  God's  good  time,  be  the  first  Bishop 
of  Maryland. 

There  is  reason  to  believe  that  William 
White,  by  birth  a  Marylander,  had  purposed 
attending  this  meeting  at  Annapolis  in  which 
he  could  not  fail  to  feel  a  deep  personal  inter- 

5 


66  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

est,  and  for  which,  by  correspondence  and 
otherwise,  he  had  prepared  the  way.  A  letter 
from  Dr.  Smith,  dissuading  him  from  coming, 
is  still  preserved  among  the  White  corre- 
spondence, and  contains  a  statement  of  the 
measures  to  be  proposed  at  the  meeting,  with- 
out, however,  any  allusion  to  the  possibility  of 
an  election  to  the  Episcopal  Office.  This  let- 
ter brings  clearly  out  the  conviction  of  the 
Maryland  clergy  as  to  their  rights,  in  com- 
mon with  the  laity,  when  organized,  "as  form- 
ing one  of  the  Churches  of  a  separate  and 
independent  State."  The  safhe  avowal  of 
State  or  diocesan  autonomy  or  independence 
appears  in  the  Declaration  of  rights  and  liber- 
ties. It  is  plainly  implied  in  the  reference 
made  to  the  change  in  the  ecclesiastical  rela- 
tions of  the  Church  in  Maryland  from  that  of 
a  daughter  of  the  mother  Church  of  England 
to  that  of  a  sister  Church.  It  was  in  keeping 
with  this  idea  of  absolute  autonomy  that  the 
Maryland  clergy  felt  justified  in  proceeding 
to  the  choice  of  a  Bishop  and  the  framing  of 
a  bill  of  rights  without  the  aid  or  cooperation 
of  any  of  the  clergy  of  the  neighboring  States. 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     67 

While  these  important  matters  were  trans- 
piring   in    Maryland,    a    correspondence    had 
been  opened  by  the  Rev.   Abraham  Beach  of 
New   Brunswick,    New  Jersey,    and  the  Rev. 
William  White,   in   which   the   hope   was   ex- 
pressed by  the  former,    "that  the  members  of 
the  Episcopal  Church   in   this   country  would 
interest  themselves  in  its  behalf,  —  would   en- 
deavor to  introduce  order  and  uniformity  into 
it,  —  and  provide  for  a  succession  in  the  min- 
istry."    A  Corporation  for  the  Relief  of  the 
Widows  and  Orphans  of  the  Clergy  had  been 
formed  prior  to  the  war  of  independence,  and 
the  necessity  of  providing  for  the  reorganiza- 
tion of   this   important  charity  was  made  the 
occasion    of    an    informal   gathering,    at    New 
Brunswick,    of    "clergy    and    laity    from    the 
States  of  New  York,  New  Jersey,  and   Penn- 
sylvania,"   on     the     nth    of    May,     1784.      A 
Committee  of  Correspondence  was  appointed 
at  this  Conference  for  the  purpose  of  forming 
a  continental  representation  of  the  Episcopal 
Church,  and  for  the  better  management  of  the 
concerns  of  said  Church.      At  this  gathering, 
the  presence  of  William  White  secured  for  his 


68  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

policy  the  sympathy  and  support  of  all  who 
were  present. 

On  the  24th  of  May,  1784,  there  met  at 
Christ  Church,  Philadelphia,  under  the  chair- 
manship of  the  Rev.  William  White,  now  a 
Doctor  in  Divinity  and  recognized  as  among 
the  foremost  men  in  Church  and  state  in  the 
land,  the  first  Convention  of  clergy  and  laity 
ever  held  in  the  country.  This  Convention 
assembled  in  pursuance  of  a  recommendation 
issued  by  the  Vestries  of  the  United  Churches 
of  Christ  Church  and  St.  Peter's  and  St. 
Paul's,  Philadelphia,  after  consultation  "on 
the  subject  of  forming  a  representative  body 
of  the  Episcopal  Churches  in  the  State."  The 
clergy  appeared  by  virtue  of  their  holding 
parochial  cures.  The  laity  had  their  appoint- 
ment by  delegation  from  the  Church  wardens 
and  vestrymen  of  each  Episcopal  Church  in 
Pennsylvania.  There  were  four  clergymen 
and  twenty-one  laymen  present.  The  prin- 
ciple was  recognized  at  the  outset  "that  each 
Church  shall  have  one  vote,  whether  repre- 
sented by  one  or  more  persons,  or  whether 
two  or  more  united  congregations   be   repre- 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     69 

sented  by  one  man,  or  set  of  men."  The 
formal  action  of  this  Convention  —  the  start- 
ing point  of  all  our  diocesan  or  general  Con- 
ventions—  appears  in  a  report  of  a  Committee 
consisting  of  the  clergy  present  and  five  of 
the  laity.  This  report,  which  was  adopted, 
is  as  follows.  It  bears  abundant  evidence 
of  its  authorship  and  attests  the  influence 
already  gained  by  William  White  over  his 
colleagues.  They  report:  "That  they  think 
it  expedient  to  appoint  a  Standing  Committee 
of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  this  State,  consist- 
ing of  clergy  and  laity;  that  the  Committee 
be  empowered  to  correspond  and  confer  with 
representatives  from  the  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  other  States,  or  any  of  them;  and  to 
assist  in  framing  an  ecclesiastical  system;  that 
a  constitution  of  ecclesiastical  government, 
when  framed,  be  reported  to  the  several  con- 
gregations, through  their  respective  minis- 
ters, church  wardens,  and  vestrymen,  to  be 
binding  on  all  the  congregations  assenting  to 
it,  as  soon  as  a  majority  of  the  congregations 
shall  have  consented;  that  a  majority  of  the 
Committee,   or  any  less  number  by  them  ap- 


yo  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

pointed,  be  a  quorum;  that  they  be  desired  to 
keep  minutes  of  their  proceedings;  and  that 
they  be  bound  by  the  following  instructions 
or  fundamental  principles: 

First.  That  the  Episcopal  Church  in  these 
States  is,  and  ought  to  be,  independent  of  all 
foreign  authority,  ecclesiastical  or  civil. 

Second.  That  it  hath,  and  ought  to  have, 
in  common  with  all  other  religious  societies, 
full  and  exclusive  powers  to  regulate  the  con- 
cerns of  its  own  communion. 

Third.  That  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel 
be  maintained,  as  now  professed  by  the 
Church  of  England,  and  uniformity  of  worship 
continued  as  near  as  may  be  to  the  liturgy  of 
the  said  Church. 

Fourth.  That  the  succession  of  the  minis- 
try be  agreeable  to  the  usage  which  requireth 
the  three  orders  of  bishops,  priests  and  dea- 
cons; that  the  rights  and  powers  of  the  same, 
respectively,  be  ascertained,  and  that  they  be 
exercised  according  to  reasonable  laws,  to  be 
duly  made. 

Fifth.  That  to  make  canons,  or  laws,  there 
be  no  other  authority  than  that  of  a  represent- 
ative body  of  the  clergy  and  laity  conjointly. 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church,     yi 

Sixth.  That  no  power  be  delegated  to  a 
general  ecclesiastical  government,  except  such 
as  can  not  conveniently  be  exercised  by  the 
clergy  and  laity,  in  their  respective  congrega- 
tions. 

We  have  here  the  leading  principles  of  The 
Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches  Considered, 
formulated  in  clear  and  concise  language,  and 
adopted  as  the  expression  of  the  first  meeting 
on  the  continent  of  clergy  and  laity  assembled 
for  purposes  of  an  ecclesiastical  nature. 

On  the  22nd  of  June,  1784,  the  clergy  and 
laity  of  Maryland  met  in  Convention,  and  in 
pursuance  of  the  "Philadelphia  plan"  the  lay 
delegates  accredited  to  this  meeting  by  the 
"different  parishes  or  vestries,"  directly  on 
organization,  "desired  leave  to  retire  and 
consult"  upon  the  Declaration  of  Fundamental 
Rights  and  Liberties  which  had  been  previ- 
ously adopted  at  a  meeting  composed  of 
clergy  only.  This  paper,  which  we  have 
earlier  given  in  full,  was  then  "read  and 
discussed  paragraph  by  paragraph,  and  unan- 
imously approved"  by  the  lay  delegates,  who 
thereupon    returned    to   the    convention,    now 


72  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

uniting  both  clergy  and  laity  in  one  body 
under  the  provisions  of  the  Declaration  of 
Rights,  for  further  deliberation  and  action. 
At  a  subsequent  Convention,  held  in  October 
of  the  same  year,  "additional  constitutions" 
respecting  "discipline  and  government"  were 
agreed  upon.  These  "constitutions"  are  in- 
teresting, as  they  afford  evidence  of  the  care- 
ful study  both  of  the  action  of  the  meeting  of 
the  clergy  and  laity  of  Pennsylvania  at  Christ 
Church,  Philadelphia,  the  preceding  May,  and 
the  principles  set  forth  in  The  Case  of  the 
Episcopal  ChurcJies  Considered.  In  the  first 
of  these  additional  Constitutions  we  have  the 
following  provision:  —  "General  Conventions 
of  this  Church,  consisting  of  the  different 
orders  of  clergy  and  laity  duly  represented," 
"shall  have  the  general  cognizance  of  all 
affairs  necessary  to  the  discipline  and  good 
government  of  this  Church,  including  particu- 
larly the  following  matters,  viz:  —  The  power 
and  authority  necessary  for  receiving,  or  ex- 
cluding from  Church  privileges  scandalous 
members,  whether  lay  or  clerical,  and  all 
jurisdiction    with    regard    to    offenders;     the 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     73 

power  of  suspending  or  dismissing  clergymen 
(of  all  orders)  from  the  exercise  of  their  min- 
istry in  this  Church;  the  framing,  approving 
of,  or  confirming  all  canons  or  laws  for  Church 
government;  and  such  alterations,  or  reforms, 
in  the  Church  service,  liturgy  or  points  of 
doctrine,  as  may  be  afterwards  found  neces- 
sary or  expedient,"  either  by  the  Church  in 
Maryland,  or  by  the  Church  "of  the  United 
States  in  General  Convention."  It  was  further 
provided  that  "in  all  matters  that  shall  come 
before  the  Convention,  -the  clergy  and  laity 
shall  deliberate  in  one  body;  but  if  any  vote 
shall  be  found  necessary,  or  be  called  for  by 
any  two  members,  they  shall  vote  separately, 
that  is  to  say,  the  clergy  in  their  different 
orders,  according  to  their  own  rules,  shall  have 
one  vote,  and  the  laity,  according  to  their 
rules,  shall  have  another  vote;  and  the  con- 
currence of  both  shall  be  necessary  to  give 
validity  to  any  measure." 

The  second  of  the  additional  Constitutions 
provides  for  the  appointment  of  "a  Commit- 
tee, consisting  of  an  equal  number  of  clergy 
and   laity,   including    the    Bishop   when    there 


74  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

shall  be  one  duly  consecrated  among  the  num- 
ber of  the  clergy."  This  Committee  was  to 
"have  standing  authority,  government  and 
jurisdiction,  agreeably  to  such  rules  as  may  be 
given  them  for  that  purpose,  in  all  matters 
respecting  the  discipline  and  government  of 
the  Church"  that  may  arise  or  require  action, 
"during  the  recess  or  adjournment  of  general 
Conventions." 

These  important  enactments  of  the  Church 
in  Maryland,  the  very  phraseology  of  which 
in  some  instances  has  been  impressed  upon 
our  present  Constitution  and  Canons,  were 
but  amplifications  of  the  provisions  adopted 
in  Philadelphia  and  earlier  found  in  White's 
pamphlet  of  1782.  The  style  is  that  of  the 
able  President  of  the  Maryland  Convention, 
Dr.  Smith,  the  Bishop-elect  of  the  Church  in 
this  state;  but  the  ideas  and  principles  are 
still  those  of  the  "Philadelphia  plan."  In  the 
toil  undertaken  at  these  successive  meetings 
of  clergy  and  the  leading  laymen  of  the  day 
to  secure  freedom  and  fulness  of  action;  in 
the  care  bestowed  in  preparing  the  various 
documents  and  papers  discussed  and  adopted, 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     75 

for  which  in  most  cases  there  were  no  prece- 
dents and  no  other  guides  than  the  action  of 
the  American  assemblies  in  securing  civil 
independence  and  framing  the  compacts  of 
State  government,  we  have  abundant  proof 
that  our  organization  was  effected  in  no  hap- 
hazard manner,  but  was  the  result  of  prayer, 
of  thought,  of  study,  and  of  well-nigh  infinite 
pains.  And  yet,  as  we  have  seen,  the  labors 
of  all  there,  scholars,  divines  and  statesmen, 
made  little  if  any  advance  on  the  clear,  sim- 
ple principles  set  forth  by  White  in  1782. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind~that  these  addi- 
tional Constitutions  of  Maryland  provide  for 
the  trial  of  clergyman  of  all  orders;  for  the 
exercise  of  godly  discipline  upon  the  laity; 
for  the  suspension  or  dismission  from  the 
exercise  of  the  ministry  of  unworthy  clergy- 
men; for  the  enactment  by  the  clergy  and 
laity  of  canons;  and  for  alterations  in  the 
liturgy  and  changes  of  doctrine  if  judged 
necessary  or  expedient.  The  coordinate  au- 
thority of  the  laity  in  all  these  matters  of 
discipline  and  government  is  affirmed,  and 
the    "vote    by  orders"  is    arranged    for    with 


j6  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

minuteness  of  detail.  The  provision  of  a 
Standing  Committee  to  represent  the  Church 
in  the  recess  or  adjournment  of  the  Conven- 
tion is  carefully  made.  Its  composition  of  an 
equal  number  of  clergy  and  laity  is  settled 
and  the  Bishop  is  recognized  an  ex-officio 
member  of  this  body,  to  which  the  discipline 
and  government  is  entrusted  when  the  Church 
is  not  assembled  in  Convention.  The  limita- 
tions and  extent  of  the  powers  of  this  Com- 
mittee are  well  defined,  and  provision  is  made 
for  the  annual  election  of  its  members  by  the 
Convention. 

The  Churchmen  in  Virginia  had  not  been 
idle  while  these  steps  toward  ecclesiastical 
organization  were  being  taken  by  their  breth- 
ren at  the  northward.  Early  in  1784,  a  Con- 
vention of  the  clergy  met  in  Richmond  and 
continued  in  session  for  three  days.  No 
records  of  this  meeting  are  preserved,  though 
references  to  its  proceedings  are  found  in  a 
letter,  still  extant,  addressed  to  the  Rev. 
Dr.  White  by  the  Rev.  David  Griffith,  the 
rector  of  Fairfax  Parish,  and  the  friend  of 
Washington.     We  learn  incidentally  from  this 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church,     yy 

letter  something  of  the  pains  taken  by  White 
to  interest  his  brethren  in  the  different  States 
in  the  scheme  for  organizing  and  perpetuating 
the  Church.  His  pen  was  never  idle,  and  his 
correspondence  with  the  leading  men  of  the 
time,  both  clerical  and  lay,  was  almost  wholly 
concerned  with  the  measures  he  had  at  heart 
for  the  Church's  good. 

"Your  different  letters  to  the  Convention 
at  Richmond  and  to  myself,"  writes  Mr. 
Griffith,  "on  the  subject  of  a  general  meeting 
of  the  Episcopal  clergy  at  New  York,  were  all 
received,  but  not  in  time  to  be  laid  before  the 
Convention,  which  sat  only  three  days.  The 
Episcopal  Church  in  Virginia  is  so  fettered  by 
laws,  that  the  clergy  could  do  no  more  than 
petition  for  a  repeal  of  those  laws  —  for  liberty 
to  introduce  ordination  and  government,  and 
to  revise  and  alter  the  liturgy.  The  session 
is  passed  over  without  our  being  able  to 
accomplish  this.  The  few  clergymen  at  Rich- 
mond to  whom  your  letter  was  shown,  ap- 
prove of  the  plans  and  proceedings  of  the 
Pennsylvania  Convention,  and  also  of  the 
General  Meeting  at  New  York,  but  no  dele- 


y 8  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

gates  have  been  appointed  to  attend.  In  the 
present  state  of  ecclesiastical  affairs  in  this 
State,  the  clergy  could  not  with  propriety, 
and  indeed  without  great  danger  to  the 
Church,  empower  any  person  to  agree  to  the 
least  alteration  whatever." 

On  the  8th  of  September,  1784,  the  clergy 
of  the  States  of  Massachusetts  and  Rhode 
Island,  under  the  moderatorship  of  the  vener- 
able John  Greaves  of  Rhode  Island,  met  at 
Boston  and  adopted,  with  some  verbal 
changes,  the  Fundamental  Principles  of  the 
Pennsylvania  Convention  of  the  preceding 
May.  Evidently  fearful  that  the  assertion  of 
absolute  ecclesiastical  independence  contained 
in  these  "Principles"  might  be  interpreted  so 
as  to  prevent  or  delay  an  application  to  the 
mother  Church  for  the  consecration  of  Bish- 
ops, the  Massachusetts  and  Rhode  Island 
clergy  added  the  following  words  to  the  first 
Fundamental  Principle:  "But  it  is  the  opin- 
ion of  this  Convention,  that  this  independence 
be  not  construed  or  taken  in  so  rigorous  a 
sense  as  to  exclude  the  Churches  in  America, 
separately  or  collectively,   from  applying  for 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     79 

and  obtaining  from   some    regular    Episcopal 
foreign  power,  an  American  Episcopate." 

They  also  "voted  that  a  circular  letter  be 
written,  in  the  name  of  the  Convention,  to  the 
Episcopal  clergy  in  the  States  of  Connecticut, 
New  York  and  Pennsylvania,  urging  the 
necessity  of  their  uniting  with  us  in  adopting 
some  speedy  measures  to  procure  an  Ameri- 
can Episcopate;  as  it  is  the  unanimous  opinion 
of  this  Convention  that  this  is  the  primary 
object  they  ought  to  have  in  view,  because  the 
very  existence  of  this  Church  requires  some 
speedy  mode  of  obtaining  regular  ordination." 
Parker  of  Boston,  who  was  the  leading  spirit 
in  the  Convention,  and  in  whose  handwriting 
the  "Fundamental  Principles"  and  the  "cir- 
cular letter"  of  the  meeting  addressed  to  the 
"Committee  of  the  Episcopal  Churches  in  the 
State  of  Pennsylvania,"  are  still  preserved, 
was  well  aware  of  the  action  of  the  Connecti- 
cut clergy  in  the  election  of  Seabury,  and  it 
was  evidently  with  a  view  of  effectually  bar- 
ring the  idea  of  a  temporary  departure  from 
Episcopacy,  which  was  still  remembered  by 
Churchmen  at  the   North,  that  the  action  at 


80  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

Boston  was  taken.  Bishop  White,  in  his 
Memoirs  of  the  Church,  speaks  of  a  "fluctua- 
tion of  counsels"  as  characterizing  the  course 
of  the  clergy  of  Massachusetts,  but  the  formal 
letter  of  this  Convention,  signed  by  the 
"Moderator,"  though  written  by  Parker,  con- 
tains the  folloAving  additional  reference  to  the 
feeling  of  the  New  England  clergy: 

"But  it  is  our  unanimous  opinion  that  it  is 
beginning  at  the  wrong  end  to  attempt  to 
organize  our  Church  before  we  have  obtained 
a  head.  Our  Churches  at  present  resemble 
the  scattered  limbs  of  the  body  without  any 
common  centre  of  union  or  principle  to  ani- 
mate the  whole.  We  cannot  conceive  it 
probable,  or  even  possible,  to  carry  the  plan 
you  have  pointed  out  into  execution  before  an 
Episcopate  is  obtained  to  direct  our  motions, 
and  by  a  delegated  authority  to  claim  our 
assent."  Again  and  again  is  this  point  re- 
ferred to  in  this  important  letter,  and  its  "ab- 
solute necessity"  asserted,  while  its  practica- 
bility is  also  maintained.  With  this  clear 
committal  to  the  Connecticut  as  opposed  to 
the    Philadelphia    plan    there  was   no   lack   of 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     81 

consistency  in  the  reception  of  the  Bishop  of 
Connecticut,  on  his  arrival  in  New  England, 
as   their  "common  head"  by  the  Churches  of 
Massachusetts    and    Rhode    Island.      At    the 
same  time  Parker  and  his  brethren  furthered, 
by  their  presence  and  support,  the  measures 
adopted    in    the    direction     of    securing    the 
English  succession  by  the  Convention  of  the 
Southern  and  Middle    States;    and    after    the 
end  had  been  attained,  and  there  were  Bishops 
in  Connecticut,  New  York  and  Pennsylvania, 
it  was  through  Parker's   instrumentality,  sec- 
onding the  suggestions  and  the  pious  wishes 
of   White,  that    the    steps    were   taken    which 
resulted     in     the     union     of     the     American 
Churches  under  one  constitution,  one  liturgy, 
and  one  system  of  discipline  and  government. 
On  the  6th  and  ;th  of  October,   1784,  there 
assembled   at   New    York,    a    Convention    the 
importance  of  which,  in  view  of  the  influence 
it    exerted    on    the    future    of    the    American 
Church,   can   hardly    be    overestimated.      We 
give  the  proceedings  of  this  meeting  in  full, 
supplementing   the    "broadside"   report   pub- 
lished at  the  time  with  the  manuscript  record 

6 


82  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

of  Dr.  William  Smith,  who  presided.  These 
proceedings,  together  with  the  President's 
own  annotations,  as  preserved  in  the  archives 
of  the  Church,  are  full  of  interest:* 

At  a  Convention  of  Clergymen  and  Lay  Depu- 
ties, of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  held  in  New  York,  Oc- 
tober 6th  and  7th,  1784: — Present  as  follows: 

Revd.  Samuel  Parker,  A.  M.,  Massachusetts  and 
Rhode-Island. 

Revd.  John  R.  Marshall,  A.  M.,  Connecticut. 

New-  York.  Revd.  Samuel  Provoost,  A.  M.,  Revd. 
Abraham  Beach,  A.  M.,  Revd.  Benjamin  Moore, 
A.M.,  Revd.  Joshua  Bloomer,  A.M.,  Revd.  Leon- 
ard Cutting,  A.  M.,  Revd.  Thomas  Moore,  Hon. 
James  Duane,  Marinus  Willet,  John  Alsop,  Es- 
quires. 

New-Jersey.  Revd.  Uzal  Ogden,  John  De  Hart, 
Esquire,  John  Chetwood,  Esquire,  Mr.  Samuel 
Spragg. 

*  These  minutes,  preserved  by  the  care  of  William  White, 
are  endorsed  in  his  handwriting  as  follows: 

"  Proceedings  of  the  General  Convention  held  in  New 
York,  October  6th,  1784,  in  ye  hand- writing  of  Dr.  Wm. 
Smith,  who  presided." 

The  manuscript  additions  to  the  printed  "broadside"  is- 
sued at  the  time,  are  in  the  handwriting  of  Dr.  William 
Smith,  the  President  of  the  Convention. 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     83 

Pennsylvania.  Revd.  William  White,  D.D.,  Revd. 
Samuel  Magaw,  D.  D.,  Revd.  Joseph  Hutchins, 
A.M.,  Matthew  Clarkson,  Richard  Willing,  Samuel 
Powell,  Richard  Peters,  Esquires. 

Delaware  State.  Revd.  Sydenham  Thorn,  Revd. 
Charles  Wharton,  Mr.  Robert  Clay. 

Maryland.    Revd.  William  Smith,  D.D. 

N.  B.  The  Revd.  Mr.  Griffith,  from  the  State  of 
Virgi-nia,  was  present  by  Permission.  The  Clergy 
of  that  State  being  restricted  by  Laws  yet  in  force 
there,  were  not  at  liberty  to  send  Delegates,  or 
consent  to  any  Alterations  in  the  Order,  Govern- 
ment, Doctrine,  or  Worship  of  the  Church. 

Oct.  6th,  A.M. 

Upon  Motion,  the  Revd.  Dr.  William  Smith  was 
called  to  the  Chair  as  President  of  this  Conven- 
tion, and  the  Revd.  Mr.  Benjamin  Moore  was  ap- 
pointed Secretary. 

The  Letters  of  Appointment  and  other  Docu- 
ments produced  by  the  several  Members  above 
mentioned  were  read;  and  also  the  following  Let- 
ters from  the  Clergy  of  Massachusetts  Bay  and 
Connecticut:  * 


*Jn  the  original  MS.  we  have  a  note,  as  follows:  "It 
being  voted  that  a  Committee  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies 
be  appointed  to  essay  the  fundamental  Principles  of  a  gen- 
eral Constitution  for  this  Church,  the  following  Gentlemen 
were  appointed,  viz:  —  Revd.  Dr.  Smith,  Revd.  Dr.  White, 


84  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

Oct.  7th.      Present  as  above. 

The  Committee  appointed  yesterday  to  essay 
the  fundamental  Principles  of  an  ecclesiastical 
Constitution  for  this  Church,  reported  an  Essay 
for  this  Purpose,  which  being  read  and  duly  con- 
sidered and  amended,  was  adopted  as  follows,  viz: 

The  Body  now  assembled,  recommend  to  the 
Clergy  and  Congregations  of  their  Communion  in 
the  States  represented  as  above,  and  propose  to 
those  of  the  other  States  not  represented,  That  as 
soon  as  they  shall  have  organized  or  associated 
themselves  in  the  States  to  which  they  respectively 
belong,  agreeably  to  such  Rules  as  they  shall  think 
proper,  they  unite  in  a  general  ecclesiastical  Con- 
stitution, on  the  following  fundamental  Principles. 

I.  That  there  shall  be  a  general  Convention  of 
the  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America. 

II.  That  the  Episcopal  Church  in  each  State, 
send  Deputies  to  the  Convention,  consisting  of 
Clergy  and  Laity. 


Revd.  Mr.  Parker,  Revd.  Mr.  Provoost,  Mr.  Clarkson,  Mr. 
De  Hart,  Mr.  Clay,  Mr.  Duane. 

"The  same  Committee  are  desired  to  frame  and  propose 
to  the  Convention  a  proper  Substitute  for  the  State  Prayers 
in  the  Liturgy,  to  be  used  for  the  Sake  [of]  Uniformity,  till 
a  further  Review  shall  be  undertaken  by  general  Authority 
and  Consent  of  the  Church." 


Constitution  of  tlie  American  Church.     85 

III.  That  associated  Congregations  in  two  or 
more  States,  may  send  Deputies  jointly. 

IV.  That  the  said  Church  shall  maintain  the 
Doctrines  of  the  Gospel  as  now  held  by  the 
Church  of  England,  and  shall  adhere  to  the  Lit- 
urgy of  the  said  Church  as  far  as  shall  be  consist- 
ent with  the  American  Revolution,  and  the  Con- 
stitutions of  the  respective  States. 

V.  That  in  every  State  where  there  shall  be  a 
Bishop  duly  consecrated  and  settled,  he  shall  be 
considered  as  a  Member  of  the  Convention,  ex 
officio. 

VI.  That  the  Clergy  and  Laity  assembled  in 
Convention,  shall  deliberate  in  one  Body,  but 
shall  vote  separately;  and  the  Concurrence  of 
both  shall  be  necessary  to  give  Validity  to  every 
Measure. 

VII.  That  the  first  Meeting  of  the  Convention 
shall  be  at  Philadelphia,  the  Tuesday  before  the 
Feast  of  St.  Michael  next;  to  which  it  is  hoped, 
and  earnestly  desired,  that  the  Episcopal  Churches 
in  the  respective  States,  will  send  their  Clerical 
and  Lay  Deputies,  duly  instructed  and  authorized 
to  proceed  on  the  necessary  Business  herein  pro- 
posed for  their  deliberation. 

Signed  by  Order  of  the  Convention, 

William  Smith,  D.  D.,  President. 


86  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

Resolved  that  it  be  recommended  to  the  Clergy 
in  the  respective  Churches  here  represented  to  ap- 
point in  each  State  a  Committee  of  not  less  than 
two  Clergymen  to  examine  Persons  who  in  the 
present  Exigency  are  desirous  of  officiating  as 
Readers,  and  to  direct  them  to  such  Duties  as  they 
are  to  perform;  and  that  it  be  recommended  to 
the  Congregations  not  to  suffer  any  Lay  Persons 
to  officiate  in  their  Churches  other  than  such  as 
shall  be  certified  by  said  Committee  to  be  duly 
qualified.  Wm.  Smith,  Pres't. 

This  was  the  first  general  meeting  of  mem- 
bers of  the  Church  in  the  various  States  with 
a  view  to  organization.  The  Churches  in 
Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  Connecticut, 
New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Dela- 
ware and  Maryland  were  represented,  the 
first  three  and  the  last  by  the  clerical  order 
only,  the  others  by  clergymen  and  laymen. 
The  Rev.  David  Griffith  of  Virginia  was  in 
attendance  by  permission,  but  was  not  able  to 
sit  as  a  delegate,  as  the  Virginia  clergy  were 
restricted  by  law  from  sending  representatives 
to  a  meeting  of  this  nature  or  from  consenting 
"to  any  alterations  in  the  Order,  Govern- 
ment,   Doctrine   or  Worship  of  the  Church." 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     87 

No  stronger  proof  could  have  been  given  of 
the  assertion  made  in  this  connection  by  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Hawks,  that  "Virginia  asserted  the 
entire  independence  of  the  Church  within  her 
limits  of  all  control  but  her  own." 

This  was  evidently  the  judgment  of  the 
Convention.  The  Committee  "appointed  to 
essay  the  fundamental  Principles  of  a  general 
Constitution  for  this  Church"  began  their 
report  with  the  recognition  of  diocesan  inde- 
pendency. They  recommended  to  the  clergy 
and  congregations  of  the  States  represented, 
and  proposed  to  those  not  represented,  to 
organize  or  associate  themselves  "in  the 
States  to  which  they  respectively  belong, 
agreeably  to  such  rules  as  they  shall  think 
proper,"  and  this  being  done,  that  they  should 
"unite  in  a  general  ecclesiastical  Constitu- 
tion" on  the  principles  we  have  already  given. 

The  general  union,  as  this  Convention 
judged,  could  only  be  effected  when  "the 
Episcopal  Churches  in  the  respective  States" 
should  "send  their  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies 
duly  instructed  and  authorized  to  proceed  on 
the     necessary     business"     proposed     in     the 


88  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

"Fundamental  Principles"  set  forth  by  the 
Convention.  The  coordinate  authority  of  the 
laity  was  clearly  maintained  in  these  "Prin- 
ciples." The  "doctrines  of  the  Gospel"  as 
"held  by  the  Church  of  England"  were 
affirmed.  The  liturgy  was  to  be  adapted  to 
the  altered  civil  Constitution,  and  not  other- 
wise changed  "till  a  further  review  shall  be 
undertaken  by  general  authority  and  consent 
of  the  Church."  Provision  was  made  for 
examination  and  appointment  of  lay  readers, 
and  with  these  recommendations  and  pro- 
posals the  preliminary  Convention  of  1784 
adjourned. 

In  the  summer  of  1785,  the  clergy,  three  in 
number,  and  lay  representatives  of  several 
parishes  in  South  Carolina,  met  in  Convention 
at  Charleston  under  the  presidency  of  a  lay- 
man. In  complying  with  the  invitation  of  the 
Convention  of  October,  1784,  to  cooperate  in 
the  measures  requisite  to  effect  a  general 
union,  they  stipulated  that  no  Bishop  was  to 
be  settled  in  that  State,  which  affords,  as  Dr. 
Hawks  well  remarks,  "an  unequivocal  proof 
of  their  sense  of  the  independence  of  the 
South  Carolina  Church." 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     89 

In  Virginia,  a  Convention  numbering  thir- 
ty-six clergymen  and  upwards  of  seventy  lay- 
men met  in  the  spring  of  1785,  and  after 
expressing  its  willingness  "to  unite  in  a  gen- 
eral ecclesiastical  Constitution  with  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  other  States  of  America,"  acceded  to  the 
"Fundamental  Principles"  proposed  with  the 
exception  of  the  fourth  and  sixth.  The  action 
of  the  Convention  with  respect  to  these 
articles  —  the  one  affirming  adherence  to  the 
doctrine  and  liturgy  of  the  mother  Church, 
the  other  to  the  provision  requiring  the  con- 
currence of  both  orders  in  voting — was  as 
follows: 

Resolved,  That  this  Convention  cannot  bind 
themselves  on  the  subject  of  the  fourth  Arti- 
cle until  the  same  shall  be  revised  at  the  next 
General  Convention  at  Philadelphia,  and  re- 
ported to  the  next  Convention. 

Resolved,  That  this  Convention  cannot 
accede  to  the  sixth  Article,  recommended  as 
a  Fundamental  Principle  of  the  said  ecclesias- 
tical Constitution. 

Resolved,    That  this   Convention  will,  how- 


90  The  Gene  7' a  I  Ecclesiastical 

ever,  accede  to  the  mode  of  voting,  recom- 
mended in  the  sixth  Article,  with  respect  to 
the  Convention  to  be  holden  at  Philadelphia, 
reserving  a  right  to  approve  or  disapprove 
their  proceedings. 

In  addition  to  this  strong  assertion  of  dio- 
cesan independence,  the  instructions  of  the 
Convention  to  their  deputies-elect  to  the 
Philadelphia  Convention  breathed  the  same 
spirit;  while  the  subsequent  action  of  the 
Convention  in  adopting  a  code  of  canons  and 
in  providing  "that  until  further  order  of  the 
Convention  the  liturgy  of  the  Church  of 
England  be  used  in  the  several  Churches 
throughout  this  Commonwealth,  with  such 
alterations  as  the  American  Revolution  has 
rendered  necessary,"  conclusively  proves  the 
sentiments  of  this  the  most  numerous  body  of 
clergy  and  laity  thus  far  assembled  in  any  of 
the  States,  as  to  the  absolute  autonomy  of  the 
Church  in  Virginia. 

It  was  almost  immediately  after  the  Con- 
ference in  New  York  that  the  "clergy  and  lay 
delegates  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
of  the  State  of  Maryland  "  met  in  Convention 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     91 

at  Chester  and  adopted  the  "additional  Con- 
stitutions" respecting  "the  future  discipline 
and  government  of  the  Church,"  to  which  we 
have  already  referred. 

In  Pennsylvania,  on  the  24th  of  May,  1785, 
the  "clergy  and  congregations  of  the  Protest- 
ant Episcopal  Church  in  the  State  of  Penn- 
sylvania" united  in  "an  act  of  association" 
agreeably  to  the  recommendation  of  the  New 
York  Conference.  By  this  step  it  was  "de- 
termined and  declared  by  the  clergy  who  do 
now  or  who  hereafter  sign  this  Act,  either  by 
its  being  ratified  by  their  respective  Vestries, 
or  by  its  being  signed  by  their  Deputies  duly 
authorized,  that  the  said  Clergy  and  Congre- 
gations shall  be  called  and  known  by  the 
name  of  The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of 
the  State  of  Pennsylvania."  By  this  Act  the 
autonomy  of  the  Church  of  Pennsylvania  was 
plainly  asserted. 

New  Jersey  appointed  deputies  to  attend 
the  General  Convention  in  Philadelphia,  "with 
power  to  accede,  on  the  part  of  this  Conven- 
tion, to  the  Fundamental  Principles  published 
by   the    Convention     *     *     *     in  New  York 


92  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

*  *  *  October,  1784;  and  to  adopt  such 
measures  as  the  said  General  Convention  may 
deem  necessary  for  the  utility  of  the  said 
Church,  not  repugnant  to  the  aforesaid  Fun- 
damental Principles." 

In  New  York,  the  "State  Convention  hav- 
ing associated  agreeably  to  the  recommenda- 
tion of  the  General  Convention"  of  1784, 
appointed  deputies  who  were  "authorized  to 
proceed  on  the  necessary  business  which  may 
be  proposed  for  their  deliberation  at  the  said 
Convention,  so  far  as  they  conform  to  the 
general  principles  which  are  established  to 
regulate  their  conduct  in  this  matter." 

While  these  measures  were  being  taken  by 
the  Churchmen  of  the  Middle  or  Southern 
States,  Connecticut  had  welcomed  its  Bishop 
and  the  other  Churches  of  New  England 
gradually  detached  themselves  from  their 
connection  with  their  brethren  at  the  south- 
ward and  accepted  the  Bishop  of  Connecticut 
either  formally*  or  practically t  as  their  dio- 

*  As  in  Rhode  Island,  where  he  was  duly  elected  Bishop. 

•j"  As  in  Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire,  where  he 
made  visitations,  confirmed  large  numbers,  and  ordained 
candidates  for  orders. 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     93 

cesan.  From  the  date  of  Seabury's  arrival 
and  his  welcome  to  his  see,  there  grew  up  a 
necessary  divergence  between  the  Churches 
of  New  England  and  those  of  the  Middle  and 
Southern  States,  which  for  a  time  threatened 
serious  consequences  to  each  and  all  alike. 
The  "Connecticut  plan"  had  proved  success- 
ful. The  "Philadelphia  plan"  was  still  a 
problem  awaiting  solution. 

With  these  notices  of  the  preliminary  meet- 
ings for  organization  it  becomes  necessary, 
ere  we  examine  in  detail  the  proceedings  of 
the  Convention  of  1785,  to  consider  some- 
what more  at  length  the  relations  of  the 
Churches  thus  organized  in  the  various  States 
to  each  other  and  to  the  Church  Catholic  of 
Christ. 

The  successful  issue  of  the  war  for  inde- 
pendence had  confessedly  destroyed  the  sole 
bond  of  union  existing  between  the  various 
congregations  of  the  Church  of  England  in 
America  before  the  revolutionary  struggle. 
That  sole  bond  of  union  was,  as  Bishop  White 
tells  us,  "the  result  of  the  connection  which 
they  in  common  had  with  the  Bishop  of  Lon- 


94  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

don."-  In  the  words  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hawks: 
''While  the  States  were  Colonies,  all  were 
alike  subject  in  ecclesiastical  matters  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of  London.  They 
were  consequently  one,  and  but  one,  in  the 
particular  of  Episcopal  authority. "f  To  this 
authority  they  had  owed  a  common  alle- 
giance.^: In  the  Colonies  where  the  Church 
had  been  established,  this  authority  had  been 
practically  shown  in  the  attempted  exercise 
of  the  judicial  authority  of  the  Episcopate 
over  the  clergy  in  giving  or  refusing  induction 
to  benefices,  and  in  the  uniform  practice  of 
issuing,  and  in  revoking  for  cause,  licenses  to 
missions  or  parishes  as  the  case  might  be. 
The  annals  of  the  older  colonial  or  provincial 
governments  afford  abundant  evidences  of  the 
continual  struggle  between  the  provincial  and 
colonial  assemblies  and  governors  on  the  one 


*  Memoirs,  (second  edition)  p.  98. 

"j"  Constitution  and  Canons,  p.  2. 

\  The  subject  of  the  Bishop  of  London's  authority  over 
the  Churches  and  clergy  of  the  Colonies  is  ably  treated  bv 
Hugh  Davey  Evans,  LL.  D.,  in  his  Essay  on  the  Episcopate 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  pp. 
1 08-1 19. 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     95 

hand  and  the  commissaries  of  the  Bishops,  or 
in  some  cases  the  Bishops  of  London  them- 
selves, for  the  exercise  of  that  branch  of  the 
judicial  authority  of  the  Episcopate  which 
relates  to  the  induction  of  the  clergy  into  ben- 
efices. It  appears  that  in  all  cases  the  Bishops 
claimed  the  right  of  licensing  the  clergy,  and 
in  general  this  right  of  the  ordinary  was  re- 
spected. In  the  Colonies  where  the  Church 
was  not  established,  the  Bishop's  license 
was  a  pre-requisite  to  admission  to  either  a 
parish  or  a  mission.  Beside  this  exercise  of 
power,  the  Bishops  from  time  to  time  ap- 
pointed commissaries  who  held  visitations  of 
the  clergy  and  church  wardens,  instituted  in- 
vestigations as  to  the  morals  of  the  clergy, 
adjudged  cases  under  the  ecclesiastical  can- 
ons, and  in  spite  of  bitter  opposition  arising 
not  only  from  the  clergy  of  ill  life  and  con- 
versation, but  from  the  vestries,  which  were 
jealous  of  interference  in  their  rights  of  pres- 
entation to  the  livings  they  had  founded  and 
still  maintained,  made,  as  was  the  case  with 
Bray  in  Maryland  and  Blair  in  Virginia,  the 
authority  of  the  ordinary,  the  Bishop  of  Lon- 


g6  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

don,  a  terror  to  evil-doers.      It  was  this  com- 
mon  dependence    upon    the   see   of    London, 
which  was  more  or  less  acknowledged  and  felt 
for    good    throughout   the   thirteen   Colonies, 
that  were  destroyed  by  the  successful  issue  of 
the  struggle  for  independence.     With  the  birth 
of  the  nation  there  was  felt  and  confessed  to 
be  the  birth  of  a  national  Church.      The  lan- 
guage of  the  preface  of  our  American  prayer- 
book  correctly  expresses  the    fact:      "When 
in    the    course    of    Divine    Providence    these 
American    States    became    independent    with 
respect   to  civil   government,    their  ecclesias- 
tical independence  was  necessarily  included." 
The  unity  of  the  faith  had  not  been  affected 
by  this  civil  change;  in  doctrine,  in  discipline, 
in  worship,  save  in  so  far  as  the  altered  polit- 
ical relations  required  slight  modifications  of 
language  in  the  parts  of  the  service  referring 
to    those    in    authority,    there    had    been    no 
change.      The  American  Churchman  was  still 
baptized  into  one  body,  —  the  Church  Catholic 
of  Christ.      At  the  holy  table  he  knelt  to  feed 
in  his  heart  by  faith  with  thanksgiving  upon 
the  same  Body  broken,  and  to  drink  the  same 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     97 

Blood  shed  for  him  and  for  his  salvation. 
Political  convulsions  could  not  change  the 
truth,  or  destroy  the  Church,  of  the  living- 
God.  The  unity  then  existing  between  the 
American  Churches  and  the  Church  of  En- 
gland, and  between  both  alike  and  the  Cath- 
olic Church  of  Christ,  was  not,  and  could  not 
be,  affected  by  the  war  of  independence. 

But  not  only  was  the  bond  of  union  exist- 
ing between  the  Churches  in  the  Colonies  and 
the  Bishop  of  London,  as  their  ordinary,  dis- 
solved; the  union  among  themselves  was  also 
destroyed.  It  could  not  be  otherwise  since 
this  connection  with  the  see  of  London  was 
the  only  bond  uniting  them,  —  the  bond  of  a 
common  Episcopal  jurisdiction,  and  the  exer- 
cise of  the  same  ecclesiastical  laws. 

We  have  seen  in  what  attitude  the  Churches 
in  the  several  States  regarded  themselves  and 
each  other.  In  the  language  of  Dr.  Hawks: 
"The  testimony  would  seem  to  leave  no 
doubt  that  in  each  State  the  Church  consid- 
ered itself  an  integral  part  of  the  Church  of 
Christ,  perfectly  independent,  in  its  govern- 
ment, of  any  and  every  branch  of  the  Church 

7 


98  The  General  Eeclesiastical 

in  Christendom.  Such  an  opinion  would  the 
more  readily  be  adopted,  from  the  fact  that 
the  several  States  considered  themselves  in 
their  civil  relations  as  independent  sovereign- 
ties, and  as  such,  sought  to  find  a  bond  of 
union,  first  in  the  articles  of  confederation, 
and  afterwards  in  the  federal  Constitution. 
Many  of  those  who  were  employed  in  laying 
the  foundations  of  our  civil  policy,  were  also 
aiding  by  their  counsels  in  the  establishment 
of  our  ecclesiastical  system;  and  hence  it  is 
not  surprising  that  there  should  be  found  not 
a  few  resemblances  between  them."*  Even 
in  Connecticut,  the  clergy,  at  the  very  outset, 
while  acknowledging  the  severance  of  the 
former  ties  —  "that  the  chain  which  connected 
this  with  the  Mother  Church  is  broken;  that 
the  American  Church  is  now  left  to  stand  in 
its  own  strength,  "f  and  admitting  the  neces- 
sity of  seeking  "to  form  a  new  union  in  the 
American  Church,  under  proper  superiors, 
since  its  union  is  now  broken  with  such  supe- 

*  Hawks'  Constitution  and  Canons,  p.  4. 

•j*  Letter  from  the  Connecticut  clergy  to  the  Rev.  William 
White,  March  25,  1783. —  Bishop  White's  Memoirs  of  the 
Church,  2nd  ed.,  pp.  282-286. 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.     99 

riors  in  the  British  Church,"  felt  themselves 
capable  of  reorganization,  and  only  proposed 
to  defer  the  business  of  reconstruction  till  the 
Episcopate  was  obtained.  In  short,  the  ac- 
tion contemplated  and  proposed  in  the  Funda- 
mental Principles  of  1784,  —  principles  based, 
as  we  have  seen,  on  those  of  The  Case  of  the 
Episcopal  Churches  Considered,  —  proves  con- 
clusively that  the  Church  in  each  independent 
State  of  the  federal  union,  where  organized 
agreeably  to  its  own  pleasure,  deemed  itself, 
and  was  regarded  by  each  independent  Church 
in  the  other  States  respectively,  as  an  inde- 
pendent branch  of  the  Catholic  Church  of 
Christ,  lacking,  indeed,  a  perfect  organization 
while  the  Episcopate  was  wanting,  but  fully 
competent  to  seek  that  perfecting  order  and  to 
organize  for  this  purpose  and  for  such  other 
purposes  as  the  present  need  seemed  to  re- 
quire. 

The  Convention  of  1785  comprised  clerical 
and  lay  representatives  from  the  Churches 
which  had  organized  in  seven  States.  It  met 
in  Philadelphia  on  the  27th  of  September  and 
continued  in  session  until  the  7th  of  October. 


ioo  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

Its  first  resolution  provided  "that  each  State 
should  have  one  vote,"  and  throughout  the 
session,  in  the  appointment  of  committees,  in 
the  adoption  of  all  measures  for  organization 
and  for  securing  the  Episcopate,  and  in  the 
consideration  of  the  proposed  changes  in  the 
liturgy,  "the  Church  in  each  State, "—  for  such 
is  the  unmistakable  language  of  the  official 
record,  —  is  recognized.  With  the  important 
measures  adopted  or  proposed  by  this  ' '  rep- 
resentative body  of  this  greater  number  of 
Episcopalians  in  these  States,"  we  have  at 
present  nothing  to  do,  save  only  so  far  as 
they  relate  to  the  adoption  of  a  Constitution 
—  not  of  "the  Church  in  each  State,"  but  of 
"the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America." 

The  General  Ecclesiastical  Constitution  of 
1785  was  drafted  by  William  White.  Al- 
though, as  its  author  reminds  us,  "it  stood 
on  recommendation  only,"  having  never  been 
formally  ratified,  it  is  still  an  important  link 
in  the  evolution  of  our  present  Constitution 
out  of  the  principles  first  formulated  in  The 
Case    of  the    Episcopal  Churches   Considered. 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    101 

These  principles  had  taken  form  and  shape, 
as  we  have  seen,  in  the  few  but  comprehen- 
sive general  or  Fundamental  Principles  re- 
commended to  the  Churches  represented 
at  the  meeting  in  New'  York,  October, 
1784,  and  proposed  by  this  informal,  or  as 
we  should  now  style  it,  "Primary  General 
Convention,"-  for  the  consideration  of  the 
Churches  not  represented.  These  articles, 
prepared  by  a  committee  of  which  William 
White  was  a  prominent  member,  and  reflect- 
ing the  ideas  of  The  Case  of  the  Episcopal 
Churches  Considered,  provided  in  the  first 
place  for  the  meeting  of  "the  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America"  in 
a  general  Convention"  to  which  "the  Episco- 
pal Church  in  each  State"  was  to  send  dep- 
uties "consisting  of  clergy  or  laity."  Provi- 
sion was  further  made  that  "associated  Con- 
gregations in  two  or  more  States"  might 
"send  deputies  jointly."  The  doctrines  of 
the  Gospel  as  held  by  the  Church  of  England 

*  So  styled  by  Bishop  White  in  his  endorsement  of  the 
original  minutes  in  the  handwriting  of  Dr.  Smith,  preserved 
in  the  archives  of  the  General  Convention. 


102  The  Genei'al  Ecclesiastical 

were  to  be  maintained.  The  liturgy  of  the 
said  Church  was  to  be  adhered  to  so  far 
as  should  be  consistent  with  the  American 
Revolution  and  the  Constitutions  of  the 
respective  States.  A  Bishop  "duly  conse- 
crated and  settled"  was  to  be  "considered  a 
member  of  the  Convention  ex-officio."  The 
clergy  and  laity  were  to  deliberate  in  one 
body  but  vote  separately,  and  the  concurrence 
of  both  was  "necessary  to  give  validity  to 
every  measure."  It  was  further  desired  that 
the  clerical  and  lay  deputies  to  the  Conven- 
tion of  1785  should  be  duly  instructed  and 
authorized  to  proceed  "on  the  necessary 
business  proposed  in  these  Fundamental  Prin- 
ciples for  their  deliberation." 

All  these  Fundamental  Principles  except 
the  fourth,  which  proposed  adhesion  to  the 
English  Prayer  Book  save  where  the  changed 
political  condition  rendered  variation  neces- 
sary, were  adopted  by  the  Convention  in  Phil- 
adelphia in  1785,  and  thus  became  the  sole 
bond  of  union  existing  between  the  Churches 
in  the  Middle  and  Southern  States  until  the 
year   1787.      It  will  be  remembered  that  the 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    103 

General  Ecclesiastical  Constitution  of  1785, 
important  as  it  is  as  illustrating  the  gradual 
development  of  Church  principles  and  ideas, 
"stood  on  recommendation  only."  Bishop 
White,  who  is  careful  to  remind  us  of  this 
important  fact,  further  remarks  that  this  ec- 
clesiastical Constitution  of  1785  "was  of  no 
use  except  in  helping  to  convince  those  who 
were  attached  to  that  mode  of  transacting 
business,  that  it  was  very  idle  to  bring  gentle- 
men together  from  various  States  for  the  pur- 
pose of  such  inconclusive  proceedings." 

"Inconclusive"  as  the  proceedings  of  the 
Convention  of  1785  appeared  to  Bishop  White 
when  reviewing  them  in  after  years,  they 
were  certainly  important  at  the  time,  and  the 
history  of  the  Church  in  the  United  States 
cannot  pass  over  even  the  recommended  Con- 
stitution formulated  at  this  period  without 
noting  its  many  and  valuable  contributions 
to  the   more  perfect  Constitution  of  October, 

1789. 

The  first  article  of  this  recommended  Con- 
stitution is  an  amplified  form  of  the  first  of 
the    Fundamental    Principles    of    1784, —  that 


104  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

there  shall  be  a  General  Convention  of  the 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America.  The  triennial  meeting  of  the 
"continental  representation"  of  the  Church, 
it  will  be  remembered,  was  one  of  the  lead- 
ing propositions  of  The  Case  of  the  Episcopal 
Churches  Considered.  As  recommended  in 
this  Constitution  of  1785,  the  first  article, 
with  slight  and  unimportant  verbal  revision 
and  a  change  in  the  time  of  meeting,  reap- 
pears in  the  Constitution  of  October,  1789. 

The  second  article  provides  for  the  repre- 
sentation in  Convention  of  both  clergy  and 
laity  in  numbers  not  exceeding  four  of  each 
order.  It  directs  "that  on  all  questions  the 
said  Church  in  each  State  shall  have  one  vote, 
and  a  majority  of  suffrages  shall  be  conclu- 
sive." 

Again,  we  find  the  basis  of  this  article  in 
the  Fundamental  Principles  of  1784.  The 
second  of  these  provided  "that  the  Episcopal 
Church  in  each  State  send  deputies  to  the 
Convention,  consisting  of  clergy  and  laity." 
The  sixth  was  in  these  words:  "The  clergy 
and  laity  assembled  in  Convention  shall  delib- 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    105 

erate  in  one  body,  but  shall  vote  separately, 
and  the  concurrence  of  both  shall  be  necessary 
to  give  validity  to  a  measure." 

In  1789,  with  the  affirmation  of  the  princi- 
ple as  expressed  in  the  second  article  of 
1785,  certain  additions,  alterations  and  verbal 
changes  respecting  the  vote  by  States,  or, 
as  it  is  now,  by  dioceses,  and  orders,  were 
adopted*  giving  the  article  very  nearly  the 
form  in  which  it  still  appears.  Certain 
principles  of  our  ecclesiastical  polity  are  here 
established.  We  find  them  originally  in  The 
Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches  Considered, 
and  later,  as  we  have  seen,  in  the  Funda- 
mental Principles  of  1784,  while  the  language 
in  this  instance  is  not  a  little  modified  by  the 
additional  Constitutions  adopted  in  Maryland 
in  1784,  which  were  themselves  based  on  the 
principles  set  forth  in  May  of  that  year  by 
the  Pennsylvania  Convention. 

The  first  of  these  principles  calling  for  no- 
tice is  the  general  proposition  that  those  who 
are  to  be  affected  by  ecclesiastical  laws,  other 
than  those  of  divine  origin,  have  a  right  by 
their  accredited  representatives  to  a  voice  and 


106  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

vote  in  the  consideration  and  enactment  of 
these  laws;  and  secondly,  that  this  right  be- 
longs to  the  laity  no  less  than  to  the  clergy. 
It  was  in  effecting  the  admission  of  the  laity 
to  the  counsels  of  the  Church  of  every  grade 
—  a  proposition  first  put  forth  in  The  Case  of 
the  Episcopal  Churches  Considered,  and  carried 
into  effect  by  its  originator  in  the  Pennsyl- 
vania Convention  of  May,  1784,  assembled  at 
Christ  Church  —  that  William  White  proved 
his  claim  to  ecclesiastical  statesmanship  and 
grafted  upon  the  legislation  of  the  Church  a 
new  principle  which  has,  under  God,  given  to 
the  American  Church  much  of  its  present 
prosperity  and  strength,  bringing  it  in  touch 
with  the  underlying  principles  of  our  civil 
Constitution.  The  Churches  of  the  New  En- 
gland States  were  from  the  first  opposed  to 
this  novel  proposition,  and  even  in  Maryland 
it  was  the  clergy  alone  who  elected  to  the 
Episcopate  of  that  State  the  Rev.  Dr.  Smith. 
Seabury,  as  we  have  seen,  was  elected  solely 
by  the  clergy,  and  in  his  formal  reception  and 
recognition  as  Bishop  of  Connecticut,  on  his 
return  from  abroad  with  full  Episcopal  powers, 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    107 

it  was  by  the  clergy  alone  that  he  was  wel- 
comed and  his  authority  as  Bishop  acknowl- 
edged and  declared.  Later,  as  we  shall  see 
in  the  election  of  Edward  Bass  to  the  Episco- 
pate of  Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire,  a 
measure  that  served  to  bring  about  the  union 
of  the  Churches  in  1789,  the  choice  was  made 
by  the  clergy  only.  But  in  Pennsylvania,  in 
New  York,  and  in  Virginia  the  views  of  White 
were  carefully  followed  and  the  right  of  clergy 
and  people  to  a  voice  in  the  selection  of  their 
ecclesiastical  rulers  of  every  grade  was  duly 
recognized. 

Confessedly  an  innovation  on  primitive  us- 
age, and  only  indirectly  sanctioned  by  the 
admitted  powers  of  parliament  in  the  final  ad- 
justment of  the  affairs  of  the  English  estab- 
lishment, the  experience  of  one  hundred  years 
has  proved  the  wisdom  of  William  White  in 
his  advocacy  and  successful  accomplishment 
of  this  principle,  and  to-day  no  one  would 
wish,  even,  for  a  change  in  this  respect.  In 
fact,  it  is  doubtful  if  the  Church  in  this  coun- 
try could  ever  have  been  organized  as  a  na- 
tional Church  on  the  principle  of  the  exclusion 


io8  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

of  the  laity  from  a  voice  in  its  legislation.  As 
it  was,  the  wise  and  far-seeing  statesmanship 
of  White  secured  for  the  Church  in  whose 
independent  organization  and  autonomy  he 
was  so  deeply  interested,  the  counsels  and 
cooperation  of  the  leading  statesmen  of  the 
time.  The  men  who  on  the  field  of  battle,  as 
soldiers  of  renown,  or  in  the  halls  of  Congress 
or  in  the  State  assemblies,  won  for  us  by  their 
united  labors  our  civil  independence,  were  per- 
sonally associated  with  their  clergymen  in  our 
State  and  General  Conventions  and  brought 
to  their  work  for  the  Church  of  God  the  wis- 
dom and  experience,  the  manly  independence 
and  thought  they  had  acquired  in  the  service 
of  their  native  land.  It  was  thus  that  there 
was  impressed  upon  our  infant  Communion 
that  American  character  —  that  correspond- 
ence between  our  ecclesiastical  and  our  civil 
Constitutions,  —  that  representative  feature 
pervading  our  entire  system,  and  that  clearly 
asserted  independence  of  all  foreign  control, 
which  justified  White  in  his  constant  use  of 
the  title  The  American  Church  as  applied  to 
the  Communion  he  did  so  much  to  mould  and 
shape  aright. 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    109 

Another  principle  is  established  in  this  sec- 
ond article  of  the  recommended  Constitution 
of  1785,  which  was  incorporated  into  the 
Constitution  of  October,   1789. 

The  ratio  of  representation  is  here  defined 
just  as  it  was  indicated  in  the  pamphlet  pub- 
lished by  White  in  1782.  The  ratio  was 
fixed  not  on  the  principle  of  wealth,  import- 
ance, size,  or  numbers,  but  on  the  ground  of  an 
entire  parity  of  rank  in  the  respective  States 
or  dioceses,  whether  great  or  small.  It  is 
the  testimony  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hawks  that  he 
had  again  and  again  heard  Bishop  White 
affirm  that  '4on  no  other  ground  would  the 
dioceses  ever  have  come  into  union."  As  it 
was,  we  see  "Delaware  State,"  with  its  three  or 
four  clergy  and  a  less  number  of  laymen,  vot- 
ing as  the  equal  of  Virginia,  then  numbering 
seventy  or  eighty  clergymen  and  assembling 
as  many  laymen  in  its  Convention.  Connec- 
ticut, with  its  twenty  thousand  Church  popu- 
lation, and  its  score  of  clergy,  claimed  no 
greater  share  in  the  Church's  legislation  than 
Rhode  Island,  with  its  few  hundreds  of  peo- 
ple and   two   or  three    clergymen.      Diocesan 


no  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

equality  is  here  asserted;  and,  indirectly,  dio- 
cesan independence  in  all  matters  not  specif- 
ically surrendered  for  the  great  end  of  union, 
since  any  diocese  was  authorized  to  demand  a 
vote  by  orders,  and  in  this  mode  of  voting 
each  diocese,  or  —  as  the  expression  then  ob- 
tained—  the  Church  in  each  State,  was  equal 
and  stood  quite  by  itself. 

There  grew  out  of  this  recommended  ar- 
ticle, as  it  was  amplified  and  amended  in 
1789,  a  check  on  the  clergy  and  the  laity 
alike.  The  language  of  the  recommended 
Article  II.  of  1785  is  vague,  but  as  experi- 
ence soon  taught,  the  principle  involved  in 
the  requirement  of  one  vote  for  the  Church  in 
each  State  demanded  that  such  a  vote  must 
be  the  concurrent  vote  of  each  order  in  that 
State.  It  is  doubtful  if,  at  the  time  that  this 
article  was  penned  by  William  White,  there 
had  been  an  instance  where  the  clergyman 
and  the  laymen  of  any  congregation  —  the 
unit  of  representation  in  White's  system  — 
had  ever  been  at  variance. 

It  would  appear  from  the  scanty  records  of 
the  general  meeting  in  New  York  in  October, 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    1 1 1 

1784,  that  this  concurrence  was  still  main- 
tained; but  the  debates  and  decisions  of  the 
meeting  in  1785  showed  conclusively  the 
need  of  an  explanation  of  this  principle  of 
voting;  and  the  present  mode  of  voting  by 
orders,  which  is  strictly  in  accordance  with 
the  principles  laid  down  in  White's  pamphlet 
of  1782,  was  formally  stated  in  the  amended 
and  enlarged  Article  II.  of  October,  1789. 

Article  III.  of  this  recommended  Constitu- 
tion of  1785,  as  printed  in  the  Journal,  pro- 
vides for  a  Convention  of  clergy  and  lay 
deputies  of  the  congregations.  It  is  the 
same  with  the  eighth  article,  as  numbered  in 
the  manuscript  copy  of  this  Constitution,  in 
the  handwriting  of  William  White,  its  author, 
which  is  still  preserved  in  the  archives  of  the 
Church. 

The  fourth  article  provides  for  the  continu- 
ance of  the  use  of  the  English  Prayer  Book  as 
''altered  by  this  Convention  in  a  certain  in- 
strument of  writing  passed  by  their  authority, 
entitled  'Alteration  of  the  Liturgy  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States   of   America,'    in    order   to    render   the 


112  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

same  conformable  to  the  American  Revolu- 
tion and  the  Constitutions  of  the  respective 
States."  These  alterations  were  contem- 
plated in  The  Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches 
Considered.  They  are  referred  to  in  the  Act 
of  Association  of  Pennsylvania  and  in  the 
Declaration  of  Rights  and  Liberties  of  Mary- 
land. They  are  noticed  in  the  Fundamental 
Principles  of  1784.  They  embodied  the 
changes  in  the  State  prayers  ordered  by  the 
House  of  Burgesses  of  Virginia  on  the  day 
after  the  news  of  the  declaration  of  independ- 
ence had  been  received.  They  were  in  effect 
those  adopted  in  Boston  by  Parker,  after  con- 
sultation with  his  vestry,  directly  upon  the 
evacuation  of  the  city  by  the  British  troops. 
They  had  been  made  use  of  by  the  patriot 
clergy  throughout  the  land;  and  where  the 
clergy  had  failed  or  refused  thus  to  recognize 
the  altered  condition  of  national  affairs,  the 
Churches  had  been  closed  and  public  service 
wholly  intermitted.  These  changes  were, 
now  that  independence  was  an  accomplished 
fact,  a  recognized  necessity,  and  up  to  this 
time    no    further    alteration    or    revision    had 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    113 

been    generally    mooted.      In    Maryland,    the 
restless  and  radical  William  Smith  had  intro- 
duced an  "additional  Constitution"  providing 
for  a  further  review,  when  desired,  by  general 
consent;    and   in    Boston   the    remnant   of  an 
Episcopal  parish,  King's  Chapel,  the  original 
proprietors    of    which    having    been    first    de- 
spoiled  of  their  property  in  pews  and  conse- 
quently of  their  right  to  vote,  had  Arianized 
the  liturgy  and  practically  separated  from  the 
Church.      But    the    Church    people    generally 
deemed   it  unwise    and    even    unwarranted    to 
proceed  to  a  revision   of  the   liturgy  without 
the  presence  of  a  Bishop,  and  in  Connecticut, 
where   the   Episcopal   head   was   secured,  the 
changes,   proposed    after   careful    deliberation 
with  the  neighboring  clergy,  were  but  few  and 
those  mainly  in  the  direction  of  removing  the 
objectionable  expressions  in  the  State  prayers. 
The    Bishop    of    Connecticut,    in    accordance 
with  the  terms  of  the  concordat  entered  into 
with   the   Scottish    Bishops    who    consecrated 
him,  set  forth  an  office  for  the  Eucharist,  mod- 
elled   on    the    Scottish    liturgy,    which    repro- 
duced  some   interesting   features   of  the   first 


1 1 4  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

book  of  Edward  VI.,  as  well  as  that  which 
Archbishop  Laud  sought  to  introduce  into 
Scotland  before  the  Great  Rebellion.  But  this 
office  was  not  enjoined.  It  stood  on  recom- 
mendation only  and  it  served  its  purpose  later 
by  the  incorporation  of  its  essential  character- 
istics into  the  revised  American  office  of  1789. 

The  fifth  and  eighth  articles  of  this  pro- 
posed Constitution,  as  they  are  numbered  in 
the  Journal,  require  special  notice  in  view  of 
the  censure  they  excited  and  the  hindrances 
to  union  their  adoption  occasioned. 

The  former  of  these  articles  provided  that 
every  Bishop  should  be  a  member  of  the  Con- 
vention cx-officio.  Bishop  White  is  careful  to 
inform  us  that  in  the  original  draft  of  this 
article  from  his  own  pen,  it  was  expressly 
provided  "that  a  bishop,  if  any  were  present, 
should  preside."  In  the  sub -committee, 
charged  with  the  duty  of  reporting  this  pro- 
posed Constitution  to  the  Covention,  this 
clause,  we  are  told  by  Bishop  White,  was  ob- 
jected to  by  a  layman  on  the  ground  that  this 
presidency  was  not  a  prerogative  of  Bishops 
in    the     ecclesiastical     assemblies    of    ancient 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    115 

days.  Though  overruled  in  sub -committee, 
the  same  gentleman,  on  the  report  to  the  Con- 
vention of  the  article  containing  this  provision 
for  Episcopal  presidency,  for  consistency  sake, 
moved  to  strike  out  the  objectionable  clause. 
The  suggestion  was  supported  by  another  lay- 
man. A  heated  debate  followed,  and,  —  we 
quote  from  Bishop  White,  —  "as  the  voting 
was  by  orders  the  clergy,  who  with  the  excep- 
tion of  one  gentleman  were  for  the  clause, 
might  have  quashed  the  whole  article."  "But 
this,"  continues  the  Bishop,  "appeared  to 
them  to  be  wrong,  because  it  contained  noth- 
ing contrary  to  the  principles  of  Episcopal 
presidency,  and  the  general  object  was  such 
as  ought  to  have  been  provided  for."  "Ac- 
cordingly," says  the  Bishop,  "the  article 
passed. as  it  stands  in  the  Journal,  —  that  is, 
with  silence  as  to  the  point  in  question.  It 
was  considered  that  practice  might  settle  what 
had  better  be  provided  for  by  law,  and  that 
even  such  provision  might  be  the  result  of  a 
mature  consideration  of  the  subject.  The  lat- 
ter expectation  was  justified,"  concludes  Bish- 
op White,  "by  the  event." 


1 1 6  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

The  eighth  article  provided  that  every  cler- 
gyman should  be  amenable  to  the  Convention 
of  the  State  to  which  he  should  belong.  It  is 
ea'sy  to  account  for  action  of  this  nature  at 
the  time  it  occurred.  Deprived  of  immediate 
Episcopal  oversight,  and  subject  to  no  re- 
straint whatever,  not  a  few  of  the  colonial 
clergy  had  by  evil  lives  disgraced  their  sacred 
calling  and  thrown  suspicion  on  the  clerical 
profession  itself.  It  was  with  reference  to  this 
unhappy  condition  of  affairs  that  the  matter  of 
clerical  delinquency  is  made  much  of  in  The 
Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches  Considered. 
Even  the  vestries,  however  much  they  might 
resent  and  resist  the  interference  of  the  Bishop 
of  London  and  his  commissaries  in  their  rela- 
tions to  their  spiritual  head,  were  far  from 
willing,  when  the  remedy  was  in  their  own 
hands,  that  that  head  should  be  a  man  of  evil 
life.  The  feeling  throughout  the  Southern 
States  was  universal  that  there  must  be  means 
provided  at  once  for  the  removal  of  unworthy 
ministers  from  their  cures,  and  in  the  apparent 
necessity  of  such  relief,  and  in  the  adoption  of 
measures  to  effect  the  same,  there  was  danger, 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    117 

as  the  English  Archbishops  and  Bishops  com- 
plained, of  an  implied  "degradation  of  the 
clerical,  and,  much  more,  of  the  Episcopal 
character."  The  action  taken  was  doubtless 
intended  to  be  in  the  direction  of  good  morals 
and  the  purifying  of  the  Church,  but  the  ar- 
ticle in  question  laid  the  Convention  open  to 
the  charge  made  by  the  English  prelates  and 
reiterated  by  the  Churches  at  the  northward 
where,  indeed,  a  much  higher  standard  of 
clerical  morality  obtained  than  in  Virginia  and 
still  further  to  the  southward.  It  was  true,  as 
Bishop  White  reminds  us,  that  the  ground  for 
complaint  against  this  article  of  the  proposed 
Constitution  of  1784  lay  rather  "in  omission 
than  in  anything  positively  declared."  The 
amenability  of  a  Bishop  even,  to  the  Conven- 
tion of  the  State,  did  not  necessarily  involve 
anything  further  than  that  he  might  be  tried 
by  laws  enacted  by  the  Convention  of  which 
he  was  a  member,  and  it  did  not  necessarily 
follow  that  he  might  be  deposed  or  even  cen- 
sured by  his  presbyters  and  laymen.  Still, 
there  was  a  failure  to  recognize  the  principle 
of  trial  by  one's  peers,  and  while  Bishop  White 


1 1 8  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

admits  that  the  injustice  complained  of  should 
have  been  "guarded  against,"  he  significantly 
adds  that  "to  have  attempted  it,  while  the 
Convention  were  in  the  temper  excited  by  the 
altercations  concerning  the  fifth  article,  would 
have  been  to  no  purpose." 

The  sixth  article  provided  for  the  choice  of 
a  Bishop  or  Bishops  "in  every  State,"  "agree- 
ably to  such  rules  as  shall  be  fixed  by  the  re- 
spective Conventions."  We  have  here  another 
significant  admission  of  State  or  diocesan  in- 
dependence. The  Bishops,  it  was  also  en- 
joined, should  confine  the  exercise  of  their 
Episcopal  office  to  their  respective  jurisdic- 
tions. 

The  seventh  article  permitted  the  admission 
at  any  time  hereafter  of  a  Protestant  Episco- 
pal Church  in  any  of  the  United  States  not 
now  represented,  "on  acceding  to  the  articles 
of  this  union."  This  provision  was  incorpo- 
rated unchanged  into  the  Constitution  of  Octo- 
ber, 1789.  The  right  of  the  State  or  diocesan 
Church  to  its  place  in  the  union  of  the 
Churches  in  General  Convention   is   inherent 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    1 19 

—  ■■'■■  '  ■■■■  ■  ■  »  -  ■  ■-  — 

and  inalienable.  It  is  a  fundamental  principle 
of  our  union  and  is  coeval  with  our  existence. 

The  ninth  article  provided  for  the  use  ''in 
this  Church,  when  the  same  shall  be  ratified 
by  the  Conventions  which  have  respectively 
sent  deputies  to  this  General  Convention"  of 
the  English  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  "as 
altered  by  an  instrument  of  writing  passed 
under  the  authority  of  this  Convention,  en- 
titled 'Alterations  in  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  and  Administration  of  Sacraments,  and 
other  Rites  and  Ceremonies  of  the  Church,  ac- 
cording to  the  use  of  the  Church  of  England, 
proposed  and  recommended  to  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
menca. 

It  was  in  accordance  with  this  instrument 
that  the  "Proposed  Book,"  as  it  has  been 
styled,  was  ordered  to  be  issued  by  a  com- 
mittee of  the  Convention  consisting  of  Dr. 
William  Smith,  Dr.  William  White,  and  Dr. 
C.  H.  Wharton.  A  comparison  of  the  altera- 
tions as  contained  in  this  paper  with  the 
"Proposed  Book"  will  show  the  liberties  taken 
by  the  Committee  in  preparing  the  book  for 


120  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

the  press.  The  history  of  these  alterations, 
and  the  emendations  and  changes  of  the  act- 
ually proposed  alterations,  appear  in  the  cor- 
respondence between  the  members  of  the 
committee  charged  with  the  publication  of  the 
''Proposed  Book."  This  correspondence  has 
been  printed  in  full  from  the  archives  of  the 
General  Convention,  and  shows  conclusively 
the  hand  of  William  Smith  as  the  chief  mover 
in  this  revision.  The  "Proposed  Book"  has 
sometimes  been  called  the  "Bishop  White 
Prayer  Book."  Such  a  title  would  be  neither 
historical  nor  accurate.  The  "Proposed  Book" 
reflects  clearly  the  sentiments,  the  style,  and 
the  prejudices  of  William  Smith. 

It  is  evident  that  at  the  time  of  the  assem- 
bling of  the  Convention  of  1785,  "very  few, 
or  rather,"  to  quote  Bishop  White,  "none"  of 
the  members-elect  "entertained  thoughts  of 
altering  the  liturgy  any  further  than  to  ac- 
commodate it  to  the  Revolution."  Bishop 
White  reminds  us  that  "there  being  no  ex- 
press authority  to  the  purpose,  the  contrary 
was  implied  in  the  sending  of  deputies,  on 
the  ground  of  the  recommendation  and  pro- 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    121 

posal  from  New  York,  which  presumed  that 
the  book,  with  the  above  exception,  should  re- 
main entire."  Virginia  alone  had  authorized 
its  deputies  to  join  in  a  review,  to  be  subject, 
however,  when  done,  to  the  approval  of,  or 
rejection  by,  the  State  Convention.  While 
every  one  may  have  desired  alterations  in 
particular  offices  or  forms,  it  was  generally 
conceded  that  such  a  revision  as  was  needed 
should  not  be  taken  till  the  Church  was  con- 
solidated and  completed  by  union  and  the 
possession  of  the  Episcopate.  There  was  a 
hesitation  on  the  part  of  the  members  of  the 
Convention  "at  making  the  book  so  perma- 
nent as  it  would  have  been  by  the  fourth 
article"  of  the  proposed  Constitution.  To 
have  agreed  to  this  article  without  further 
action  would  have  practically  transferred  the 
binding  authority  of  the  rubrics,  offices,  and 
forms  as  found  in  the  English  Book,  save  so 
far  as  the  political  situation  required  modifi- 
cation, upon  the  American  Church.  It  is 
submitted  that  with  the  view  entertained  at 
this  period  of  the  unbending  obligation  of  the 
English  Book,  as  enforced  by  the  Act  of  Uni- 


122  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

formity,  the  adoption  of  the  fourth  article 
of  the  proposed  Constitution  of  1785  would 
simply  have  enjoined  that  obligation,  un- 
changed and  unchangable,  on  the  American 
Church  for  all  time  to  come.  We  cannot 
wonder,  then,  at  the  hesitancy  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Convention  to  adopt  this  article 
to  which  Bishop  White  alludes.  Arguments 
were  now  offered  in  favor  of  a  review,  notic- 
ably  on  account  of  the  archaic  expressions, 
that  required  adaptation  to  our  present  use 
of  language,  and  also  in  view  of  the  fact 
"that  there  were  some  matters  universally 
held  exceptionable  independently  of  doc- 
trine." And  so  it  happened  that  "a  moder- 
ate review,"  as  Bishop  White  tells  us,  "fell 
in  with  the  sentiments  and  wishes  of  every 
member."  There  grew  up  a  persuasion  in  the 
minds  of  the  deputies  that  the  result  would 
be  generally  acceptable  to  the  Church  at 
large;  and  thus,  in  spite  of  the  lack  of  author- 
ity, the  Convention  entered  upon  the  work  of 
revision. 

William  White   was  not  a  member   of   the 
sub-committee  by  whom  these  alterations  in 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    123 

the  Prayer  Book  were  proposed  and  reported 
to  the  Convention.  He  is  careful  to  inform 
us  in  his  Memoirs  of  the  Church  that  "when 
brought  into  committee  they  were  not  recon- 
sidered, because  the  ground  would  have  to  be 
gone  over  again  in  Convention."  We  have, 
therefore,  no  detailed  history  of  what  Bishop 
White  calls  "the  preparatory  stage  of  the  bus- 
iness." Even  in  the  Convention,  we  are  told 
by  the  same  authority,  "there  were  but  few 
points  canvassed  with  any  material  difference 
of  principle."  These  "few  points"  we  proceed 
to  notice. 

A  motion  of  Mr.  Page  of  Virginia  proposed 
the  omission  of  the  first  four  petitions  of  the 
litany,  and  the  introduction  instead  of  "a 
short  petition  which  he  had  drawn  up,  more 
agreeable  to  his  ideas  of  the  Divine  persons 
recognized  in  those  petitions."  "The  mover 
declared,"  as  we  learn  from  Bishop  White, 
"that  he  had  no  objection  to  the  invoking  of 
our  blessed  Saviour,  whose  divinity  the  prayer 
acknowledged  and  Whom  he  considered  as 
invoked  through  the  whole  of  the  Liturgy." 
This,    he    thought,     "might    be    defended    by 


1 24  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

Scripture."  His  "objection  lay  to  the  word 
'Trinity,'"  which  he  denounced  as  "unauthor- 
ized by  Scripture  and  a  foundation  of  much 
unnecessary  disputation."  The  omission  of 
the  fourth  petition  only,  in  which  alone  the 
word  occurred,  would  leave  the  other  petitions 
liable,  he  thought,  to  the  charge  of  recogniz- 
ing three  Gods.  He  consequently  moved  to 
strike  out  the  entire  four  petitions. 

The  Rev.  William  West  of  Maryland  replied 
to  Mr.  Page  under  "great  agitation,"  appre- 
hensive, as  Bishop  White  tells  us,  that  this 
speech  was  "the  signal  for  aiming  at  very 
hazardous  and  essential  alterations."  The 
quiet  management  of  Dr.  White  appears  to 
have  prevented  further  discussion,  and  through 
his  skilful  manipulation,  as  soon  as  Dr.  West 
had  finished  his  speech  the  question  was  put 
and  lost  without  a  division. 

The  framing  of  a  service  for  the  Fourth  of 
July  was,  as  Bishop  White  tells  us,  "the  most 
injudicious  step  taken  by  the  Convention."  It 
might  have  been  foreseen  that  a  form  of  this 
nature  which  had  been  prepared  by  Dr.  Smith, 
who  had  both  written   and  acted  against  the 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    125 

Declaration  of  Independence  and  was  under 
suspicion  during  the  greater  part  of  the  war, 
could  not  prove  appropriate  or  papular  in  a 
Church  seeking  the  comprehensive  character 
and  the  tolerance  of  differences  which  might 
include  all  good  men  in  its  communion. 

Had  it  been  a  question  of  praying  for  the 
prosperity  of  the  State,  or  for  the  temporal 
and  spiritual  good  of  the  rulers,  the  case  would 
have  been  different.  The  form  proposed  in- 
cluded a  retrospective  approval  of  measures 
respecting  which  both  clergy  and  laity  were 
far  from  being  in  accord.  That  William 
White,  an  avowed  and  consistent  patriot  from 
the  start,  opposed  the  adoption  of  the  form, 
supported  though  he  was  by  one  other  deputy 
alone,  would  convince  us  of  the  unwisdom  of 
the  proposition. 

The  day  was  observed  in  but  few  instances, 
and  although  the  Service  as  found  in  the 
"Proposed  Book"  is  used  from  time  to  time 
in  our  own  days  under  very  different  circum- 
stances, by  special  license  of  the  Bishops,  it 
never  approved  itself  sufficiently  to  take  the 
place  of   the   State    services    which    were,   till 


126  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

recent    times,    so    marked    a    blemish    in    the 
English  Book  of  Prayer. 

On  the  subject  of  the  articles  there  arose  a 
dispute  with  reference  to  the  doctrine  of  justi- 
fication and  a  proposed  article,  to  which  White 
and  the  excellent  David  Griffith,  afterward 
Bishop-elect  of  Virginia,  made  objection,  was 
withdrawn  and  the  words  of  the  XXXIX  Ar- 
ticles on  that  subject  restored.  An  article 
concerning  predestination,  which,  as  Bishop 
White  says,  "professed  to  say  something  on 
the  subject,  yet  in  reality  said  nothing,"  was 
introduced  and  received  the  approval  of  the 
Convention. 

The  moderation  and  calm  judgment  of 
White  prevailed  in  securing  the  removal  of  a 
controverted  passage  from  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  —  chapter  VII,  beginning  at  the  9th 
verse,  —  from  the  proposed  article  on  original 
sin,  as  prepared  by  Dr.  Smith.  It  is  to  be 
remembered  in  connection  with  this  subject 
that  it  is  the  testimony  of  Bishop  White  that 
"whatever  is  novel"  in  the  proposed  articles 
set  forth  at  this  time  "was  taken  from  a  book 
in  the  possession  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Smith,  who 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    1.27 

was   in   every  way   the   leading    spirit   in   the 
proposed  revision." 

Bishop  White  calls  attention  to  "two  cap- 
ital errors  independently  of  the  merits  of  the 
alterations  themselves,"  into  which  the  Con- 
vention fell.  The  first  was  the  printing  of  a 
large  edition  of  the  book,  which  was  thought 
to  be  inconsistent  with  its  being  merely  a  pro- 
posal, and  was  therefore  considered  a  stretch 
of  power  and  "designed  to  effect  the  intro- 
duction of  the  book  to  actual  use  in  order  to 
prevent  a  discussion  of  its  merits."  The  sec- 
ond error  was  the  ordering  of  the  use  of  this 
service  at  Christ  Church,  Philadelphia,  at  the 
close  of  the  Convention,  on  the  occasion  of 
Dr.  Smith's  sermon  eulogizing  and  explaining 
the  revision. 

This  step  confirmed  the  opinion  of  a  pur- 
pose of  introducing  the  book  with  a  high 
hand.  The  book  prepared  by  the  Committee 
consisting  of  Dr.  Smith,  White,  and  Wharton, 
appeared  after  tedious  delay  and  was  at  first 
coldly  received  and  shortly  afterward  rejected. 
It  was  only  "proposed"  and  ere  a  Convention 
could  assemble  to  act  on  the  proposal  for  its 


128  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

adoption   it  had   been    laid   aside  by  common 
consent. 

Events  more  important  that  the  framing  of 
Constitutions  or  the  review  of  the  liturgy  were 
occupying  the  thoughts  of  American  Church- 
men. 

It  was  at  the  Convention  of  1785  that 
united  measures  were  first  taken  for  obtaining 
the  succession  in  the  English  line.  There 
was  now  a  Bishop  of  Scottish  consecration  in 
the  country.  The  success  of  the  application 
to  Scotland  rendered  success  in  England  more 
probable.  The  application  to  England  for 
the  apostolical  Succession,  contemplated  by 
White  from  the  first,  and  never  lost  sight  of 
for  a  moment,  now  met  with  no  opposition. 

It  was  by  White  that  the  resolutions  and 
address  to  the  English  Archbishops  and  Bish- 
ops, as  found  on  the  Journal  of  the  Conven- 
tion, were  drafted.  It  was  fitting  that  the 
earliest  steps  in  this  direction  should  be  taken 
by  this  judicious  man.  We  proceed,  therefore, 
to  examine  in  detail  the  measures  thus  origi- 
nated for  obtaining  for  the  American  Church 
the  historic  Episcopate  in  the  English  line. 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.   129 

—  .  ■       .  ■■■■ —  — ■      »   ■■  ■-■-  —  — . 

The    third   and  fourth  articles  of  the   Con- 
stitution  of  the   American   Church  as   finally 
adopted  in  1789,  are  concerned  with  the  rec- 
ognition and  regulation  of  the  Episcopal  order 
and   office.      Incidental  references  to  Bishops 
are  found  in  the  fifth,  sixth  and  seventh  arti- 
cles, while  the  tenth  article,  as  finally  ratified 
in    1844,   provides   for  the    communication   of 
the  Episcopate  to  foreign  lands.     It  is  evident 
both  from   the    prominence   thus  accorded  to 
the   Episcopal    office  and  the   pains  taken  by 
our  fathers  to  secure  the  same,  that  the  Epis- 
copate they  desired  and  finally  obtained  was 
not  a  mere  name,  but   a  very  real  thing, — an 
office  having  certain   important,  indispensable 
functions;   an  order,  the  powers  and  duties  of 
which,  as  well   as   its  continuous  existence  in 
the  Church  of  Christ,  are  matters  of  history. 
The  question  so  often  mooted  as  to  the  divine 
origin   and   right  of  Episcopacy,   or   even   the 
discussion  as  to  its  necessity  to  the  being  or 
well-being  of  a  Church,  are  not  pertinent  to 
our  present  investigation.      It  is  not  necessary 
even  to  claim,  in  this  connection,  that  which 
seems  to  us  indisputable,  that  the  Church  to 

9 


130  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

which  we  belong  acknowledges,  at  least  by 
fair  implication,  and  certainly  in  Ordinal  and 
Canons  acts  upon,  the  principle  of  the  divine 
origin  of  the#  historic  Episcopate  so  lately 
characterized  by  the  great  Lightfoot  as  the 
backbone  of  the  faith.  This  at  least  is  certain 
and  confessed  by  all.  The  exercise  of  the 
Episcopal  function,  the  conduct  of  Bishops, 
the  manner  of  their  choice, — in  fact,  in  all  but 
the  bare  essentials  of  the  order  and  office,  the 
Episcopate  is  under  the  control  of  human  law. 
The  application  of  that  law,  its  nature,  its  ori- 
gin, its  limitations,  as  constitutionally  affecting 
the  office  and  administration  of  a  Bishop  of 
the  Church  of  God  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  of  the  United  States  of  America  is  our 
special  subject  of  inquiry. 

Dr.  Hugh  Davey  Evans,  in  his  "Essay  on 
the  Episcopate  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church" — a  volume  of  great  value  from  its 
judicial  treatment  of  the  questions  involved — 
calls  attention  to  a  fact  at  once  suggestive  and 
important. 

''The  American  branch  of  the  Anglican  Com- 
munion so   fully  recognizes  the    Episcopate,  that 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    131 

she  has  made  that  recognition  a  part  of  the  very 
name  which  she  has  assumed.  She  calls  herself 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  Protestant  as 
rejecting  the  errors  of  Romanism;  Episcopal  as 
recognizing  the  Episcopate  'as  part  of  her  own 
being.'  Yet  she  has  nowhere  set  forth  any  defini- 
tion of  the  words  Bishop,  Episcopal,  Episcopate, 
or  Episcopacy;  nor  has  she  settled  the  rights  and 
duties  which  they  imply.  In  common  with  all  the 
other  branches  of  the  Anglican  Communion,  she 
declares,  that  'it  is  evident  to  all  men  diligently 
reading  Holy  Scripture  and  ancient  Authors,  that, 
from  the  Apostles'  times  there  have  been  these 
orders  of  ministers  in  Christ's  Church, — Bishops, 
Priests,  and  Deacons.'  And  in  common  with  the 
same  Churches,  she  exacts  that,  'to  the  intent  that 
these  orders  may  be  continued,  and  reverently 
used  and  esteemed  in  this  Church,  no  man  shall 
be  accounted  or  taken  to  be  a  lawful  Bishop, 
Priest,  or  Deacon,  in  this  Church,  or  suffered  to 
execute  any  of  the  said  functions,  except  he  be 
called,  tried,  examined  and  admitted  thereunto, 
according  to  the  Form  hereinafter  following,  or 
hath  had  Episcopal  Consecration,  or  Ordination.' 
"Yet  while  she  thus  recognizes  the  three  orders, 
and   speaks   of   them   as  'functions,'  she   has  no- 


132  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

where  set  down  any  definition   or  description   of 
those  functions,  except  in  the  case  of  deacons. 

"This  remarkable  state  of  things  also  exists  in 
every  other  branch  of  the  Anglican  Church.  The 
same  thing  is,  in  substance,  true  of  every  Episco- 
pal Church,  which  is  or  has  been,  in  the  world. 
There  is  nowhere  any  canon,  or  other  authorita- 
tive document,  defining,  or  describing,  the  office 
of  a  Bishop,  or  prescribing  the  limits  of  his  rights 
and  duties.  Canons  there  are,  both  ancient  and 
modern,  which  regulate  the  mode  of  exercising  the 
powers  of  Bishops,  and  impose  or  enforce  specific 
duties  upon  them;  perhaps  some  may  be  found 
which  give  to  them  rights,  but  that  is  very  doubt- 
ful. But  all  these  canons  presuppose  the  existence 
of  Bishops,  as  a  known  order  in  the  Church,  exer- 
cising authority.  The  first  of  the  canons  called 
Apostolical,  probably  the  oldest  document  bearing 
that  title"  (with  the  single  exception  of  the  lately 
discovered  'Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles') 
"regulates  the  ordination  of  Bishops,  implying 
their  existence  as  a  known  order  in  the  Church. 
When  we  pass  to  the  conciliar  canons,  that  is, 
those  which  are  known  to  have  been  formally 
passed  by  councils,  we  are  met  by  the  fact,  that 
all  the  councils,  from  the  very  first,  were  com- 
posed of  Bishops.      No  council  has  ever  enacted 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    133 

any  canons  which  did  not  presuppose  the  exist- 
ence of  Bishops.  .  .  Nobody  knows  by  whom 
the  canons  called  Apostolical  were  enacted,  or 
whether  they  are  anything  more  than  a  body  of 
rules,  collected  by  some  unauthorized  person  from 
the  usages  of  the  Church.  Yet  they  recognize 
Bishops  as  a  known  and  existing  order,  at  the  time 
of  their  compilation;  which  is  supposed  to  have 
been  during  the  second  century. 

"That  Bishops  were  an  existing  order  in  the 
Church  at  that  early  period,  we  know  from  other 
and  less  equivocal  sources.  Gibbon  is  always 
prepared  to  take  that  side  of  any  question  which 
is  least  favourable  to  the  established  doctrines  and 
practices  of  the  Church.  But  the  force  of  truth 
compels  him  to  admit,  that  from  a  very  early 
period,  Nulla  Ecclesia  sine  Episcopo,  has  been  a 
fact  as  well  as  a  maxim,  and  that  after  we  get  past 
the  difficulties  of  the  second  century,  we  find  Epis- 
copacy universally  established. 

"The  difficulties  of  the  second  century  are  not 
very  formidable  when  it  is  recollected  that  the 
existence  of  Bishops  is  a  fact  recognized  by  every 
Christian  writer  of  that  period,  of  whom  there  are 
any  remains.  In  its  very  beginning,  we  meet  with 
Ignatius,  whose  writings  contain  abundant  evi- 
dence of  the  existence  of  Bishops.      .      .     These 


1 34  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

epistles  were  written  within  a  very  few  years  after 
the  death  of  St.  John.  Clemens  Romanus,  Poly- 
carp,  Irenseus,  and  Tertullian,  form,  with  Ignatius, 
a  chain  of  writers  extending  from  the  very  begin- 
ning to  the  very  end  of  the  second  century,  all  of 
whom  bear  witness  to  the  existence  of  Bishops." 

The  results  of  the  latest  scholarship  add  to 
the  strength  of  the  position  thus  assumed. 
Lightfoot,  who  sees  in  Saint  James  —  the 
brother  of  the  Lord — the  first  Diocesan 
Bishop,  or,  to  quote  his  very  words,  "James, 
the  Lord's  brother,  alone,  within  the  period 
compassed  by  the  apostolic  writings,  can 
claim  to  be  regarded  as  a  Bishop  in  the  later 
and  more  special  sense  of  the  term,"  and  who 
regards  the  position  occupied  by  Timothy 
and  Titus,  whom  he  styles  "apostolic  dele- 
gates," as  one  which  "fairly  represents  the 
functions  of  a  Bishop  early  in  the  second 
century,"  is  conclusive  as  to  the  fact  "that 
the  institution  of  an  episcopate  must  be 
placed  as  far  back  as  the  closing  years  of  the 
first  century,  and  that  it  cannot,  without  vio- 
lence to  historical  testimony,  be  dissevered 
from  the  name  of  Saint  John." 


Constitiitio?i  of  the  American  Church.    135 

We,  therefore,  reach  these  conclusions: 
The  American  branch  of  the  Holy  Catholic 
Church  recognizes  the  Order  of  Bishops  as 
existing  from  the  Apostles'  time.  She  has 
not  defined  the  functions  pertaining  to  this 
Order  of  the  sacred  ministry,  or  expressly 
marked  out  the  limitations  of  its  powers. 
She  refers  to  scripture  and  ancient  authors 
for  the  fact  of  the  existence  "from  the 
Apostles'  time"  of  this  Order  and  office.  It 
may  be  further  inferred  with -reason  that  the 
nature  of  the  office,  as  it  was  originally  insti- 
tuted, and  the  extent  of  the  powers  inherent 
in,  or  conceded  to,  this  Order  may  be  learned 
from  the  same  "Holy  Scripture  and  ancient 
authors."  In  other  words,  the  Episcopate, 
sought  for  and  at  length  secured  by  our 
fathers,  was  the  historic  Episcopate,  and  in 
the  absence  of  any  definition  in  constitution, 
canons,  liturgy,  or  symbols,  of  the  nature  of 
this  office  and  administration,  it  may  be  in- 
ferred that  whatever  the  Bishop  was,  in  the 
judgment  and  acknowledged  practice  of  the 
Church,  the  American  Bishop  was  to  be;  so 
that  all  rights,  powers,  privileges  inhering  in 


1 36  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

this  office  or  appertaining  to  the  same  were 
sought  for  and  secured  in  obtaining  the  Epis- 
copate. In  other  words,  the  American  Bish- 
op was  to  be  no  new  creation,  but  the  peer  of 
any  and  every  Bishop  of  the  Church  of  God. 

To  trace  the  story  of  the  efforts  of  our 
fathers  to  secure  the  Episcopate  will  substan- 
tiate this  position  and  make  clear  this  claim. 
In  the  efforts  made  for  the  Episcopate  we  see 
at  the  outset,  and  throughout  the  struggle, 
even  to  the  moment  of  success,  the  hand  and 
head  of  him  of  whom  his  distinguished  suc- 
cessor* rightly  claimed  that  "Bishop  White 
will  be  recognized  as  the  founder  and  wise 
master-builder  of  a  system  of  Ecclesiastical 
Polity,  which,  though  not  faultless,  is  as 
perfect  as  the  condition  of  things  then  ad- 
mitted, and  of  which  the  essential  excellence 
is  likely  to  be  demonstrated  by  the  progress 
of  events." 

In  The  Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches  Con- 
sidered, William  White  had  argued  that  "it 
may  fairly  be  inferred  that  Episcopalians  on 
this   continent   will   wish   to   institute    among 


*  Bishop  Alonzo  Potter 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    137 

themselves  an  Episcopal  government  as  soon 
as  it  shall  appear  practicable,  and  that  this 
government  will  not  be  attended  with  the 
danger  of  tyranny,  either  temporal  or  spirit- 
ual." The  proposition  "to  include  in  the 
proposed  frame  of  government  a  general  ap- 
probation of  Episcopacy,  and  a  declaration  of 
an  intention  to  procure  the  succession  as  soon 
as  conveniently  may  be;  but  in  the  mean  time 
to  carry  the  plan  into  effect  without  waiting 
for  the  succession,"  was  happily  rendered  un- 
necessary, and  the  writer  of  this  pamphlet 
became  most  actively  concerned  in  securing 
this  "succession"  for  the  Church  of  which  he 
was  already  a  leading  spirit.  At  the  meeting 
of  clergy  and  laity  convened  in  Philadelphia 
on  the  24th  of  May,  1784,  at  which  Dr.  White 
was  chosen  Chairman,  the  fourth  of  the  "in- 
structions or  fundamental  principles"  adopted, 
provided  "that  the  succession  of  the  ministry 
be  agreeable  to  the  usage,  which  requireth  the 
three  orders  of  bishops,  priests  and  deacons; 
that  the  rights  and  powers  of  the  same,  re- 
spectively, be  ascertained;  and  that  they  be 
exercised  according  to  reasonable  laws,  to  be 


138  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

duly  made."  In  this  provision  it  is  easy  to 
recognize  the  hand  of  White.  Out  of  the 
meeting  of  May,  1784,  there  grew,  under  the 
fostering  care  of  White,  the  organization  or 
"association"  of  the  "Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,"  which 
was  effected  on  the  24th  of  May,  1785.  This 
important  document  named  as  the  objects  had 
in  view  by  the  clergy  and  congregations  in 
this  "act  of  association,"  the  following: — "For 
maintaining  uniformity  in  Divine  worship,  for 
procuring  the  powers  of  Ordination,  and  for 
establishing  and  maintaining  a  system  of  ec- 
clesiastical government."*  This  "Act  of  As- 
sociation" was  evidently  the  composition  of 
White,  and  it  embodies  the  principles  and 
even  the  language  of  The  Case  of  the  Episco- 
pal Churches  Considered. 

In  the  active  correspondence  kept  up  by 
White  with  the  leading  Churchmen  North  and 
South,  we  find  further  evidence  of  his  purposes 
concerning  the  "succession."  In  a  letter  ad- 
dressed, in  1784,  to  the  Rev.  Samuel  Parker  of 
Trinity    Church,    Boston,    the    exact    date   of 

*  Perry's  Historical  Notes  and  Documents,  p.  40. 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    139 


which   is   unfortunately   lost,    Dr.  White   thus 
expresses  his  views  on  this  important  matter: 

"On  the  subject  of  procuring  the  Succession,  I 
shall  only  observe  that  if  any  private  measures 
said  to  have  been  undertaken  for  this  end  should 
prove  successful,  I  think  the  whole  Church  should 
gladly  avail  itself  of  the  acquisition.  If  not,  an 
application  to  our  Mother  Church  from  represent- 
atives of  the  Episcopal  Church  generally  will  be, 
surely,  too  respectable  to  be  slighted;  and  such  an 
application  might  be  easily  framed  by  correspon- 
dence among  ourselves."* 

Writing  again  on  the  10th  of  August,  1784, 
to  the  same  correspondent,  White  observes: 

"The  fundamental  principles  which  you  have 
seen  were  merely  meant  as  instructions  to  a  Com- 
mittee in  their  consultations  with  our  brethren  in 
the  other  States  for  the  forming  a  general  Consti- 
tution for  the  Continent,  which  we  think  should 
be  attempted  before  we  venture  to  form  a  Consti- 
tution for  this  State  in  particular.  .  .  .  The 
independence  asserted  is  intended  in  the  most  un- 
limited sense;  but  we  do  not  think  this  precludes 
us   from    procuring   a    Bishop    from    England,  he 

*  Perry's  Historical  Notes  and  Documents,  p.  60. 


140  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

becoming  on  his  arrival  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States.  Proper  measures  for  procuring  an  Epis- 
copate we  wish  to  see  taken  at  the  ensuing  meeting 
in  New  York;  but,  as  to  his  support,  I  know  no 
source  for  it,  but  a  parochial  living."* 

The  clergy  of  Massachusetts  and  Rhode 
Island,  under  the  guidance  of  Parker,  adopted 
the  Pennsylvania  Fundamental  Principles  with 
slight  additions,  the  first  of  these  expressing 
"the  opinion  of  the  Convention  that  this  in- 
dependence be  not  construed  or  taken  in  so 
rigorous  a  sense  as  to  exclude  the  Churches  in 
America,  separately  or  collectively,  from  ap- 
plying for  and  obtaining  from  some  regular 
Episcopal  foreign  power  an  American  Epis- 
copate, "t 

In  the  letter  accompanying  the  minutes  of 
this  Convention,  which,  though  signed  by  the 
Moderator,  the  Rev.  J.  Graves,  is  in  the  hand- 
writing and  is  evidently  the  composition  of 
Parker.  The  position  respecting  the  episco- 
pate expressed  in  the  resolution  is  further 
emphasized: 

*  Perry's  Historical  Notes  and  Documents,  p.  61. 
I  Perry's  Historical  Notes  and  Documents,  p.  63. 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    141 

"As  to  the  mode  of  obtaining  what  we  stand  in 
such  need  of,  we  wish  above  all  things  to  procure 
it  in  the  most  regular  manner,  and  particularly 
from  our  Mother  Church  in  England.  Whether 
any  of  the  Bishops  in  England  or  Ireland  would 
consecrate  a  person  chosen  among  ourselves  and 
sent  there  for  that  purpose,  without  a  mandate 
from  the  King  of  England  or  the  authority  of  her 
parliament,  we  are  at  a  loss  to  determine;  but  we 
have  no  doubt  that  a  regular  application  made  by 
a  representative  body  of  the  Episcopal  Churches 
in  America  would  easily  obtain  a  consecrated 
head,  and  in  order  to  do  this,  we  earnestly  wish  a 
mode  of  applying  in  some  such  way  as  may  be 
immediately  adopted  by  the  American  Churches. 

"We  are  of  the  opinion  that  we  ought  to  leave 
no  means  untried  to  procure  a  regular  success  of 
the  episcopacy  before  we  think  of  obtaining  it  in 
an  irregular  manner.  To  accomplish  this,  we 
have  chosen  a  committee  of  our  body  to  cor- 
respond with  you  upon  this,  and  adopt  such 
measures  for  the  same  as  may  be  expedient  or 
necessary."  * 

The  letter  from  the  Massachusetts  and 
Rhode  Island  clergy  expressed  the  sentiments 

*  Perry's  Historical  Notes  and  Documents,  pp.  65-66. 


142  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

prevailing  in  Connecticut,  and  which  seem  to 
have  been  current  throughout  New  England. 
The  conservative  elements  in  the  North  were 
alarmed,  not  only  at  the  proposition  in  The 
Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches  Considered  for 
"a  temporary  departure  from  Episcopacy," 
but  by  the  radical  measures  adopted  at  the 
southward  where,  in  Virginia,  anticipatory 
canons  were  enacted  defining  and  circumscrib- 
ing the  exercise  of  the  Episcopal  office  and 
making  the  Bishop  not  only  amenable  to  trial 
by  the  Convention,  but  even  liable  to  "sus- 
pension or  dismission"  from  office;  while  in 
South  Carolina  it  was  stipulated  that  Bishops 
should  not  be  introduced  at  all. 

Prior  to  the  meeting  of  the  Convention  of 
the  Churches  in  the  Middle  and  Southern 
States  in  1785,  the  efforts  of  the  Connecticut 
clergy  to  secure  an  Episcopal  head  had  re- 
sulted in  success.  On  the  14th  of  November, 
1784,  at  Aberdeen,  the  Rev.  Samuel  Seabury, 
D.D.,  Oxon.,  was  consecrated  the  first  Ameri- 
can Bishop  by  the  Bishops  of  the  Catholic 
remainder  of  the  Church  in  Scotland.  Enter- 
ing  into   a   concordat   with   the   Church   from 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    143 

which  he  received  his  Episcopal  character, 
Seabury  lost  no  time  in  beginning  his  work, 
and  was  joyfully  received  by  his  clergy,  the 
formal  welcome  being  extended  in  Convoca- 
tion in  Middletown,  August,  1785.  At  this 
Convocation  in  Middletown  the  Churches  in 
Massachusetts  and  Rhode  Island  were  repre- 
sented by  the  Rev.  Samuel  Parker,  while  the 
conservative  element  in  New  York  was  repre- 
sented by  the  Rev.  Benjamin  Moore.  Both 
of  these  gentlemen  were  friends  and  corres- 
pondents of  White  and  each  had  taken  part 
in  the  preliminary  measures  and  meetings  of 
1784  which  had  prepared  the  way  for  the 
Convention  in  Philadelphia  in  September, 
1785.  To  this  meeting  Bishop  Seabury  and 
his  clergy  were  invited,  but  as  there  was  no 
provision  in  the  Fundamental  Principles 
adopted  in  New  York  at  the  preliminary 
meeting  of  1784  for  the  proper  recognition 
of  his  office,  Seabury  courteously  declined 
the  invitation,  as  the  clergy  at  the  southward 
did  his  suggestion  that  they  should  attend  the 
meeting  at  Middletown. 

It  is  in   evidence   that   had   there   been   the 


144  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

provision  that  one  of  the  Episcopal  Order,  if 
present,  should  preside,  as  was  originally  in- 
tended by  White,  Bishop  Seabury  would  have 
gone  to  Philadelphia  in  1785,  as  he  did  later, 
in  1789;  but  there  can  be  little  doubt  that 
such  a  step  would  have  been  premature  and 
might  have  absolutely  prevented,  in  place  of 
furthering,  the  unity  so  greatly  desired  by 
both  White  and  himself.  There  was  no  little 
to  be  done  by  the  statesmanship  and  wise, 
conciliatory  measures  of  White  ere  the  con- 
flicting elements  in  the  Church  could  be 
calmed,  and  order  arise  out  of  chaos. 

Prior  to  the  meeting  in  Philadelphia,  letters 
from  Bishop  Seabury  to  Drs.  William  White 
and  William  Smith,  the  leading  spirits  in  the 
Convention,  frankly  communicated  informa- 
tion respecting  the  rejection  of  the  Connecti- 
cut application  in  England,  and  offered  the 
Bishop's  services  for  the  ordination  of  candi- 
dates until  a  Bishop  was  secured  at  the  south- 
ward. At  the  same  time  the  Bishop  objected 
to  the  policy  which  had  obtained  in  the  Con- 
ventions at  the  South  of  encumbering  their 
plans  for  organization  by  establishing  so  many 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    145 

and  such  precise  fundamental  rules.  He 
claimed  that  the  powers  of  the  Bishop  were 
too  much  circumscribed,  since  "government 
as  essentially  pertains  to  Bishops  as  ordina- 
tion." He  denied  "that  the  laity  can  with 
any  propriety  be  admitted  to  sit  in  judgment 
on  Bishops  and  Presbyters,  especially  when 
deposition  may  be  the  event;  because  they 
cannot  take  away  a  character  which  they  can- 
not confer."  The  Bishop  was  careful  to  state 
that  he  did  not  think  it  requisite  that  the 
Churches  at  the  southward  should  be  mod- 
elled on  the  Church  in  Connecticut;  but  he 
earnestly  urged  that  "in  so  essential  a  matter 
as  Church  government  is,  no  alterations  should 
be  made  that  affect  its  foundations."  The 
Bishop  professed  himself  ready  "to  assist  in 
procuring  Bishops  in  America"  so  far  as  he 
could  do  this  consistently.  His  desire  is 
stated  as  follows:  "I  do  most  earnestly  wish 
to  have  our  Church  in  all  the  States  so  settled 
that  it  may  be  one  Church,  united  in  govern- 
ment, doctrine,  and  discipline,  —  that  there 
may  be  no  divisions  among  us — no  opposition 
of  interests — no  clashing  of  opinions." 

*  Perry's  Historical  Notes  and  Documents,  pp.  76-82. 


146  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

The  objections  raised  by  the  Bishop  of 
Connecticut  and  repeated  by  the  venerable 
Thomas  Bradbury  Chandler  of  New  Jersey, 
were  answered  by  the  indefatigable  William 
White.  On  the  very  eve  of  the  meeting  in 
Philadelphia,  Parker  wrote  to  his  correspon- 
dent in  reply  to  a  letter  which  indicates  that 
the  fatal  defect  of  withholding  the  presidency 
of  the  Convention  from  the  Episcopal  Order 
was  adopted  in  opposition  to  the  wish  of  the 
far-seeing  White.  "I  am  sorry,"  he  writes  to 
Parker,  "to  find  that  those  measures  have 
been  so  construed  by  some  of  our  friends  in 
England,  as  if  we  had  refused  to  the  Episcopal 
Order  the  right  of  precedency  in  our  Conven- 
tions. Probably  you  will  recollect,  that  in 
the  original  draft  it  was  provided  the  senior 
Bishop  present  should  preside;  and  that  this 
was  erased,  not  from  the  idea  that  any  other 
than  a  Bishop  ought  to  be  President,  but  from 
an  observation  of  Dr.  Sfmith],  that  to  restrain 
it  to  the  senior  Bishop  might  be  sometimes  in- 
convenient;  I  wish  that  the  clause  had  stood." 

Parker's  letter  throws  further  light  on  this 
unfortunate  action:     "I  am,  with  you,  equally 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    147 

sensible  that  the  fifth  of  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples in  the  paper  printed  at  N.  York  has 
operated  much  to  the  disadvantage  of  that 
Convention.  Had  it  stood  as  I  proposed  that 
a  Bishop  (if  one  in  any  State)  should  be  pres- 
ident, I  make  no  doubt  there  would  have  been 
one  present.  You  will  be  at  no  loss  to  con- 
clude that  I  mean  Doctor  Seabury,  who,  you 
must  ere  this  have  heard,  is  arrived  and  en- 
tered upon  the  exercise  of  his  office  in  Con- 
necticut. Being  present  in  Convocation  at 
Middletown  the  4th  of  August  last,  I  much 
urged  his  attending  the  Convention  at  Phila- 
delphia this  month,  but  that  very  article  dis- 
couraged him  so  much  that  no  arguments  I 
could  use  were  sufficient  to  prevail  with  him. 
Had  that  article  stood  as  proposed,  the  gen- 
tleman who  moved  the  amendment,  would  not 
have  suffered  by  it,  nor  the  Convention  been 
stigmatized  as  Anti-Episcopalian."* 

The  opening  pages  of  the  Journal  of  the 
Convention  at  Philadelphia  in  1785  bring  to 
our  notice  a  proposed  "plan  for  obtaining  the 
consecration  of  Bishops,  together  with  an  ad- 

*  Perry's  Historical  Notes  and  Documents,  pp.  S9-90. 


148  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

dress  to  the  Most  Reverend  the  Archbishops 
and  the  Right  Reverend  the  Bishops  of  the 
Church  of  England,  for  that  purpose."* 

This  Plan  and  Address  attest  the  wide- 
spread desire  of  the  Churchmen  represented 
in  this  Convention  for  the  Episcopate  as  a 
necessary  bond  of  union.  They  further  prove 
the  preference  of  the  Churches  of  the  Middle 
and  Southern  States  for  the  succession  in  the 
English  line.  Recognizing  as  the  acknowl- 
edged hindrance  to  the  success  of  Dr.  Sea- 
bury's  application  to  the  English  prelates,  the 
lack  of  evidence  of  the  concurrence  of  the 
civil  authorities  and  the  cooperation  of  the 
laity  in  the  effort  for  the  succession,  they  di- 
rected the  attention  of  the  State  Conventions 
to  measures  for  the  removal  of  this  obstacle. 
Proofs  of  the  desire  of  the  laity  for  the  intro- 
duction of  the  Episcopate  were  to  be  provided 
and  documents  certifying  the  concurrence  of 
the  State  authorities  in  the  proposed  meas- 
ures, or  at  least  attesting  the  absence  of  any 
constitutional  or  legislative  bar  to  the  intro- 
duction  of  Episcopacy,   were   to   be  obtained 

*  Perry's  Reprinted  Journals,  I.,  19. 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    149 

from  the  various  civil  rulers.  In  true  repub- 
lican simplicity,  and  for  the  removal  of  pop- 
ular prejudices,  they  sought  to  prevent,  by  the 
concluding  paragraph  of  their  plan  for  obtain- 
ing consecration,  the  assumption  on  the  part 
of  their  future  Bishops  of  the  lordly  titles  of 
the  English  prelates,  —  a  proposition  not  un- 
frequently,  though  erroneously,  quoted  as  of 
authority  at  the  present  day. 

The  "Address"  to  the  English  prelates  was 
manly  and  dignified.  Bishop  White  informs 
us*  that  this  paper  and  the  "plan"  itself,  "as 
they  stand  on  the  Journals,"  were  his  own 
composition  "with  the  exception  of  a  few 
verbal  alterations."  It  expressed  the  "earnest 
desire  and  resolution"  of  "the  members  of  our 
communion"  "to  retain  the  venerable  form  of 
Episcopal  government,  handed  down  to  them, 
as  they  conceived,  from  the  time  of  the  Apos- 
tles; and  endeared  to  them  by  the  remem- 
brance of  the  holy  bishops  of  the  primitive 
Church,  of  the  blessed  martyrs  who  reformed 
the  Church  of  England,  and  of  the  many  great 
and    pious    prelates    who    have   adorned   that 

*  Memoirs  of  the  Church,  2nd  ed.,  p.  101. 

m 


150  The  Ge?ieral  Ecclesiastical 

Church  in  every  succeeding  age."  Its  plea 
was  summed  up  in  these  words: — "The  peti- 
tion which  we  offer  to  your  venerable  body  is, 
that  from  a  tender  regard  to  the  religious 
interests  of  thousands  in  this  rising  empire, 
professing  the  same  religious  principles  with 
the  Church  of  England,  you  will  be  pleased  to 
confer  the  Episcopal  character  on  such  persons 
as  shall  be  recommended  by  this  Church  in 
the  several  States  here  represented;  full  satis- 
faction being  given  of  the  sufficiency  of  the 
persons  recommended,  and  of  its  being  the 
intention  of  the  general  body  of  the  Episco- 
palians in  the  said  States,  respectively,  to 
receive  them  in  the  quality  of  Bishops." 

Reference  is  felicitously  made  to  the  possi- 
bility of  obstacles  arising  from  political  com- 
plications; and  stress  is  laid  on  the  fact  that 
in  view  of  the  separation  of  Church  and  state 
the  civil  rulers  of  the  United  States  cannot 
unite  officially  in  the  application  for  the  Epis- 
copal succession.  The  "Address"  closes  with 
a  graceful  as  well  as  grateful  acknowledgment 
of  the  kind  offices  rendered  by  the  English 
hierarchy  and  the  Society  for  the  Propagation 


Co?istitntion  of  the  American  Church.    151 

of  the  Gospel  to  the  American  Church,  to 
which,  under  God,  its  "prosperity  is  in  an 
eminent  degree  to  be  ascribed." 

It  was  in  this  address,  prepared  by  the 
writer  of  The  Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches 
Considered,  and  embodying  its  ideas,  —  now 
at  length  on  the  verge  of  realization — that,  as 
Bishop  White  asserts,  "a  foundation  was  thus 
laid  for  the  procuring  of  the  present  Episco- 
pacy." "To  have  abandoned  the  Episcopal 
succession,"  writes  Bishop  White  in  his  Mem- 
oirs of  the  Churchy  "would  have  been  in  op- 
position to  primitive  order  and  ancient  habits; 
and  besides,  would  at  least  have  divided  the 
Church.  To  have  had  recourse  to  Scotland, 
independently  of  the  objections  entertained 
against  the  political  principles  of  the  non- 
jurors of  that  country,  would  not  have  been 
proper,  without  previous  disappointment  on  a 
request  made  to  the  Mother  Church.  An- 
other resource  remained,  in  foreign  ordination; 
which  had  been  made  the  easier  by  the  aet  of 
the  British  parliament,  passed  in  the  preced- 
ing year,  to  enable  the  Bishop  of  London  to 
ordain  citizens  or  subjects  of  foreign  countries 


152  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

without  exacting  the  usual  oaths.  But  be- 
sides that  this  would  have  kept  the  Church 
under  the  same  hardships  which  had  hereto- 
fore existed,  and  had  been  so  long  complained 
of;  dependence  on  a  foreign  country  in  spirit- 
uals, when  there  had  taken  place  independence 
in  temporals,  is  what  no  prudent  person  would 
have  pleaded  for." 

The  reply  of  the  English  prelates  was 
courteous  but  cautious,  and,  in  fact,  non- 
commital.  It  was  prepared  by  the  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  and  was  signed  by  the  two 
Archbishops  and  the  Bishops  of  London, 
Chichester,  Bath  and  Wells,  St.  Asaph,  Salis- 
bury, Peterborough,  Ely,  Rochester,  Worces- 
ter, Oxford,  Exeter,  Lincoln,  Bangor,  Lichfield 
and  Coventry,  Gloucester,  St.  David's  and 
Bristol.  The  letter  expresses  the  wish  of  the 
English  prelates  to  promote  the  spiritual 
welfare  of  their  "Episcopal  brethren  in 
America,"  and  their  desire  to  be  instrumental 
in  procuring  for  them  "the  complete  exercise 
of  our  holy  religion,  and  the  enjoyment  of  that 
Ecclesiastical  Constitution"  which  they  believed 
"to  be  truly  apostolical,"  and  for  which  the 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    153 

letter  of  request  expressed  "so  unreserved  a 
veneration."  The  Archbishop  did  not  conceal 
his  satisfaction  that  "this  pious  design"  was 
' '  not  likely  to  receive  any  discountenance  from 
the  cure  powers"  in  America,  and  promised 
"the  best  endeavours"  of  the  English  prelates 
"to  acquire  a  legal  capacity  of  complying  with 
the  prayer"  of  the  American  address.  At  the 
same  time  and  with  every  allowance  for  the 
difficulties  of  the  situations,  the  fear  is 
expressed  that  in  the  proceedings  of  the 
Convention  "some  alterations  may  have  been 
adopted  or  intended,  which  those  difficulties 
do  not  seem  to  justify."  In  view  of  the  fact 
that  these  alterations  are  not  mentioned  in 
the  address,  and  that  the  knowledge  of  their 
nature  possessed  by  the  Bishops  in  England 
had  reached  them  "through  private  and  less 
certain  channels,"  the  Bishops  thought  it  but 
just  to  "wait  for  an  explanation."  "Anxious 
to  give  every  proof,"  not  only  of  "brotherly 
affection"  but  also  of  facility  in  forwarding  the 
wishes  of  their  American  brethren,  they  felt 
that  they  could  not  "but  be  extremely  cautious 
lest"    they    "should     be    the    instruments    of 


154  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

establishing  an  ecclesiastical  system"  which 
"could  be  called  a  branch  of  the  Church  of 
England,  but  afterwards"  might  "possibly 
appear  to  have  departed  from  it  essentially, 
either  in  doctrine  or  discipline." 

The  correspondence  between  the  Philadel- 
phia Convention  and  the  Primate  had  been 
carried  on  through  the  kindly  intervention  of 
the  celebrated  John  Adams,  the  American 
Minister  at  the  Court  of  St.  James.  Mr. 
Adams,  although  connected  with  the  Congre- 
gational body  of  Massachusetts,  and  coming 
from  a  State  where  the  opposition  to  the  intro- 
duction of  Episcopacy  into  America  had  been 
more  decided  than  elsewhere, — the  aversion  to 
the  measure  being  occasioned  by  religious  as 
well  as  political  prejudices,  —  undertook  this 
office  of  furthering  the  object,  which  the 
celebrated  Samuel  Adams  had  declared  to  be 
a  moving  cause  of  the  war  for  independence, 
with  an  alacrity  and  enthusiasm  most  honorable 
to  the  man  and  to  his  freedom  from  religious 
or  political  prejudices.  He  delivered  the 
address  to  the  Archbishop  in  person,  and  by 
his    personal    efforts    in    public    and    private, 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    155 


greatly  facilitated  the  progress  of  the  measure. 
It  was  through  Mr.  Adams  that  the  reply  of 
the  Archbishops  and  Bishops  was  transmitted 
to  Dr.  White.  That  the  office  thus  kindly 
undertaken  was  one  liable  to  misconception, 
and  that  the  prejudices  against  the  introduction 
of  the  Episcopate  were  not  wholly  allayed, 
making  the  service  rendered  by  the  American 
Minister  the  more  valuable  and  effective,  may 
be  inferred  from  the  language  used  by  Mr. 
Adams  nearly  thirty  years  afterwards,  when 
referring  to  his  share  in  the  successful  effort 
for  securing  the  Episcopate  for  America. 

"There  is  no  part  of  my  life,"  writes  ex- 
President  Adams  to  Bishop  White,  under  date 
of  October  29,  18 14,  "on  which  I  look  back 
and  reflect  with  more  satisfaction,  than  the 
part  I  took,  bold,  daring  and  hazardous  as  it 
was  to  myself  and  mine,  in  the  introduction  of 
the  Episcopacy  into  America." 

There  had  been  an  active  correspondence 
kept  up  by  William  White  and  prominent 
English  friends  from  the  very  moment  of  the 
cessation  of  hostilities  between  Great  Britain 
and  the  independent  States  of  America.     The 


156  The  Ge?ieral  Ecclesiastical 

letters  which  passed  between  Dr.  Inglis, 
formerly  of  Trinity,  New  York,  and  later  the 
first  British  Colonial  Bishop;  the  celebrated 
Philadelphia  refugee  clergyman,  the  Rev. 
Jacob  Duche;  together  with  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Alexander  Murray,  who  had,  for  a  time,  been 
the  missionary  of  the  Venerable  Society  at 
Reading,  in  Pennsylvania,  and  Dr.  White,  the 
leading  spirit  in  the  measures  now  rife  for  the 
organization  and  perpetuation  of  the  American 
Church,  are  full  of  interest  and  throw  no  little 
light  on  the  inner  workings  of  the  plan  to 
secure  the  Episcopate.  Beginning  with  the 
appearance  of  The  Case  of  the  Episcopal 
Churches  Considered,  the  letters  from  these 
English  correspondents  became  most  important 
in  acquainting  White,  informally  and  often 
confidentially,  with  difficulties  arising  from 
misapprehensions  of  the  steps  taken  in 
America,  or  from  fears  entertained  of  the 
doctrinal  unsoundness  or  moral  unfitness  of 
some  who  were  known,  or  supposed,  to  be 
candidates  for  the  office  of  Bishops  in  the 
American   Church. 

The   loyalist   clergy   in   London,   who  were 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    157 

naturally  in  the  confidence  of  the  Archbishop 
and  the  leading  dignitaries  of  the  Establish- 
ment, were  soon  able  to  assure  their  cor- 
respondent in  Philadelphia  that  a  proper 
application  for  the  Episcopate  would  be 
favorably  regarded.  The  passage  of  the  Act 
of  Parliament,  authorizing  the  dispensing  with 
the  usual  oaths  in  the  case  of  American 
Candidates  for  Orders,  gave  further  assurance 
of  a  kindly  interest  in  the  rising  American 
Church.  The  needs  of  the  Church  in  the 
United  States  became  a  matter  of  interest  and 
discussion  in  the  public  press.  Pamphlets 
were  published  on  the  subject  by  leading  men, 
such  as  the  celebrated  philanthropist,  Granville 
Sharp,  Esq.,  a  grandson  of  a  former  Archbishop 
of  York.  The  offices  not  alone  of  Mr.  Adams, 
the  American  Minister,  but  also  of  the  cele- 
brated Benjamin  Franklin,  then  in  Paris,  were 
invoked.  The  proper  foundation  of  the  inde- 
pendent American  Church,  and  its  completion, 
by  the  gift  of  the  succession,  seem  to  have 
occupied  the  thoughts,  the  labors,  and  the 
prayers  of  the  leading  men  in  Church  and 
state  at  this  critical  period. 


158  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

At   length   the    correspondents   of  William 
White  were  able  to  write  definitely  as  well  as 
encouragingly.      Murray  begins  his  communi- 
cation of  the    nth  of  March,   1786,  with  the 
prophetic  words:     "I  would  fain  hope  the  day 
is  not  far  distant  when  I  shall  have  the  honour 
of  addressing  you   as   Right  Reverend."      He 
proceeds:    ' '  Mr.  Adams  has  finally  obviated  all 
political   objections   to  your  Application,  and 
reconciled   the   King,   the   members,    and  the 
whole  Bench  of  Bishops  to  it."     It  was  a  relief 
to  find  that  the  alterations  in  the  Prayer  Book, 
comprising  what   is   now  known   as  the  Pro- 
posed Book,  were  "not  yet  approved,  but  only 
proposed     and     recommended."     As     Bishop 
White   informs   us,    it   was    "the   omission  of 
Christ's    descent    into    hell,   in    the    Apostles' 
Creed,"  as  given  in  the  Proposed  Book,  that 
was  specially  distasteful  to  the   English  prel- 
ates, though  this  objection  was  urged  only  by 
the  Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells,  Dr.  Moss.     The 
failure  of  the  Bishops  to  receive  the  advance 
sheets  of  the   Proposed   Book,  which,  though 
sent  to  them  from  time  to  time  as  the  work 
was  hurried  through  the  press,  failed,  through 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    159 

some  mischance,  to  reach  their  destination, 
occasioned  the  "caution"  which  Bishop  White 
notices  as  characterizing-  the  English  prelates' 
reply.  Even  in  the  United  States  there  was 
a  lack  of  unanimity  in  this  effort  to  remove 
the  reference  to  the  descent  into  hell  from  the 
Apostles'  Creed.  Both  at  the  North  and  the 
South  it  was  felt  that  such  radical  changes 
were  likely  to  prejudice  the  success  of  the 
application  in  England  for  the  Episcopate,  and 
also  imperil  the  unity  of  the  Church  in  the 
United  States.  A  very  large  number  of 
Churchmen  sympathized  with  the  Bishop  of 
Connecticut  and  the  conservative  element  in 
New  England,  New  York,  and  New  Jersey. 
All  these  deprecated  any  liturgical  changes 
from  the  English  book  or  doctrinal  departure 
from  the  standards  of  the  Mother  Church. 
This  was  deemed,  to  quote  the  language  of 
Parker  of  Boston,  addressed  to  Dr.  White, 
"in  direct  violation  of  the  fourth  fundamental 
principle  agreed  on  by  the  Convention  in  New 
York,"  in  1784.  This  principle  provided  that 
the  American  Church  should  maintain  the 
doctrines    of    the    Church    of    England,    and 


160  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

adhere  to  the  liturgy  of  that  Church  so  far  as 
consistent  with  the  American  Revolution  and 
the  Constitutions  of  the  respective  States. 

A    confidential    letter    from    the    Rev.    Dr. 
Inglis,  to  whom  alone  the  Archbishop's  letter 
had  been  communicated,  to  Dr.  White,  under 
date  of  June  6,  1786,  expressed  the  satisfaction 
of    the    English    Bishops    at    finding,    on    the 
receipt  of  the  Proposed  Book,  ''that  the  great 
essential     doctrines     of     Christianity"     were 
"preserved;   particularly  the  doctrine  of  the 
Holy  Trinity  and  Our  Saviour's  Atonement." 
The     Archbishop    of    Canterbury    had     now 
"taken  up  the  business  with  greater  zeal  "and 
was  about  to  apply  for  an  Act  of  Parliament 
authorizing  the   consecration   of    Bishops   for 
America.      The    conditions    required    by    the 
Archbishop   and   Bishops,    as    stated    by   Dr. 
Inglis,  were  these:    "  1.  —  A  restoration  of  the 
Article  which  has  been  expunged  out  of  the 
Apostles'   Creed.      2.  —  A   restoration    of    the 
Nicene    and    Athanasian    Creeds,    so    far,    at 
least,  as  to  leave  the  use  of  them  discretional. 
3.  —  Securing  to  the  future  Bishops  that  just 
and  permanent  authority,    which  is  not  only 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    161 

necessary  for  the  right  discharge  of  their 
duty  and  the  benefit  of  the  Church,  but  which 
is  warranted  by  Holy  Scripture  and  the 
practice  of  the  Christian  Church  in  every 
period  of  its  existence.  And  4. —  Proper 
testimonials,  such  as  the  peculiarity  of  the 
case  demands,  of  the  competency  in  point  of 
learning,  the  unblemished  moral  character,  and 
the  soundness  in  the  faith,  of  those  who  may 
be  sent  over  for  consecration."*  Proceeding 
to  discuss  these  conditions,  Dr.  Inglis  gives  us 
some  light  on  the  action  taken  in  New  York, 
to  which,  as  we  have  seen,  Dr.  Parker  of 
Boston  so  strenuously  excepted: 

"With  regard  to  your  future  Bishop's  permanent 
authority,  I  consider  it  as  absolutely  necessary  to 
the  peace,  order,  and  good  government  of  your 
Churches.  When  I  first  saw  the  regulation  made 
on  this  head,  I  was  astonished  how  any  people 
professing  themselves  members  of  an  Episcopal 
Church,  could  think  of  degrading  their  Bishop  in 
such  a  manner.  No  Episcopal  power  whatever  is 
reserved  for  him  but  that  of  Ordination,  and 
perhaps  Confirmation.      He  is  only  a  member,  ex- 


*  Perry's  Historical  Notes  and  Documents,  p.  302. 


1 62  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

officio,  of  the  Convention  where  he  resides,  but  is 
not  to  take  the  chair,  or  preside,  unless  he  is 
asked;  whereas  such  presidency  is  as  essential  to 
his  character  as  Ordination.  St.  Paul's  Bishop 
was  to  receive,  and  judge  of  accusations  brought 
against  presbyters,  as  hath  been  the  case  of 
Bishops  ever  since;  but  your  Bishop  has  nothing 
to  do  with  such  matters: — the  Convention,  con- 
sisting mostly  of  laymen,  are  to  receive,  and  judge 
of  accusations  against  him.  In  short,  his  barber 
may  shave  him  in  the  morning;  and  in  the  after- 
noon vote  him  out  of  his  office. 

"I  was  astonished,  I  say,  at  this  regulation,  and 
could  not  account  for  the  clergy's  agreeing  to  it, — 
but  my  astonishment  ceased  when  I  was  assured 
by  a  letter  from  America,  that  all  the  clergy, 
except  one,  opposed  it;  but  were  out-voted,  or 
overawed  into  a  compliance,  by  the  laity.  This 
accounted  for  the  matter;  it  is  only  one  of  the 
evils  which  I  foresaw  would  attend  the  introduction 
of  so  many  laymen  into  Conventions;  and  be 
assured  it  will  be  followed  by  many  others." 

The  Convention  of  the  Episcopal  Churches 
of  the  Middle  and  Southern  States  met  in 
Philadelphia  in  June,  1786.  It  assembled, 
Bishop    White    informs    us,    "under    circum- 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    163 

stances   which   bore   strong   appearances  of  a 
dissolution  of  the  union   in   this  stage  of  it." 
There  contributed  to  this  state  of  affairs  sev- 
eral circumstances.     The  ''interfering  instruc- 
tions   from     the    Churches    in     the    different 
States," — each  of  these  Churches  being  inde- 
pendent of  the  others  and  each  cherishing  its 
own   notions  as  to  the  organization  and   per- 
petuation of  the  Church, — afforded  one  source 
of  danger.      The  "embarrassment  which  had 
arisen  from  the  rejection  of  the  Proposed  Book 
in   some   of  the   States    and   the   use   of  it   in 
others,"   together   with    the    almost    universal 
disposition  to  revise  still  further  this  revision 
and  amend  its  proposed  amendments,  afforded 
another  source  of  apprehension.      There  had 
grown    up    in    the     minds    of    some,    notably 
through  the  influence  of  the  patriot  Provoost, 
the  Whig  rector  of  Trinity,  New  York,  a  spirit 
of   opposition    to    the    Bishop   of  Connecticut 
and    a    disposition    to     discredit     the     source 
whence  he  had  received  the  Episcopate,  and 
the  warmth  of  feeling  thus  engendered  threat- 
ened the  lasting  separation  of  the  Churchmen 
in  America.     The  unwillingness  of  the  Church 


164  The  General  Ecclesiastical 


in  South  Carolina  to  receive  a  Bishop  at  all, 
and  the  growing  indifference  in  Virginia  to 
the  adoption  of  measures  for  securing  the  suc- 
cession, indicated  a  lack  of  Churchly  senti- 
ment and  an  indifference  to  religion  itself 
most  discouraging.  The  attempts  of  the  able 
but  erratic  Dr.  William  Smith  of  Maryland  to 
obtain  the  Episcopate  of  the  Church  in  that 
State;  and  the  attitude  of  Provoost  of  New 
York  towards  those  of  his  brethren  who  were 
in  sympathy  with  Seabury  and  the  New 
England  Churchmen  were  elements  of  weak- 
ness in  the  union  of  the  Churches  of  the 
Middle  and  Southern  States.  Remonstrances 
from  the  conservative  Churchmen  of  New 
Jersey  had  been  addressed  to  the  Convention, 
deprecating  the  radical  measures  already 
taken.  It  was  evident  that  there  was  no 
prospect  of  securing  any  cooperation  from 
New  England  in  their  further  efforts  for  or- 
ganization. Parker  of  Boston  had  expressed 
his  conviction  that  the  Scotch  succession  was 
less  likely  to  excite  prejudice  than  that  of 
England,  at  this  time.  "In  these  Northern 
States,"   he    wrote    to    Dr.    White,     "I    much 


Constitution  of  t lie  American  Church.    165 

doubt  whether  a  Bishop  from  England  would 
be  received,  so  great  is  the  jealousy  still 
existing  of  the  British  nation.  Of  a  Scotch 
Bishop  there  can  be  no  suspicions,  because 
wholly  unconnected  with  the  civil  powers 
themselves,  they  could  introduce  none  into 
these  States.  Were  it  not  for  these  reasons, 
I  frankly  confess  I  should  rather  have  the 
succession  from  the  English  Church,  to  which 
we  have  always  been  accustomed  to  look  as 
children  to  a  parent."* 

Besides  these  unpromising  circumstances, 
the  caution  so  evident  in  the  letter  of  the 
English  prelates,  and  the  question  whether  the 
conditions  they  laid  down  would  be  granted 
by  the  Convention,  added  to  the  difficulties  of 
the  situation.  One  man  alone  in  the  midst  of 
these  complications  pursued  the  even  tenor 
of  his  way.      William  White  never  lost  heart; 

1 

never  remitted  his  exertions  in  the  interest  of 
the  Church  of  which  he  was  now  confessedly 
the  leading  spirit.  Correcting  misapprehen- 
sions, overcoming  opposition,  removing  prej- 
udices,   he    labored   with   one   single   end   and 

*  Perry's  Historical  Notes  and  Documents,  p.  309. 


1 66  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

aim  in  view.  It  was  for  the  Church  of  God 
that  he  worked  untiringly,  and  we  may  well 
bless  God  for  his  patient  toil  and  well- 
deserved  success. 

The  conflicting  instructions  to  the  deputies 
accredited  to  the  Convention  of  June,  1786, 
from  their  respective  constituencies,  were 
skilfully  gotten  over  by  their  reference  "to 
the  first  Convention  which  should  meet,  fully 
authorized  to  determine  on  a  Book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer."  This  adroit  use  of  a  rule  of 
parliamentary  procedure  was  the  suggestion 
of  William  White.  It  was  through  this  ex- 
pedient that,  as  White  expressed  it,  "the 
instructions,  far  from  proving  injurious,  had 
the  contrary  effect,  by  showing  as  well  the 
necessity  of  a  duly  constituted  ecclesiastical 
body,  as  the  futility  of  taking  measures  to  be 
reviewed  and  authoritatively  judged  of,  in  the 
bodies  of  which  we  were  the  deputies.  Such 
a  system  appeared  so  evidently  fruitful  of 
discord  and  disunion  that  it  was  abandoned 
from  this  time."*  The  same  judicious  delay 
of  definite  action  with  respect  to  the  Proposed 

*  White's  Memoirs  of  the  Church,  De  Costa's  ed.,  p.  131. 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    167 

Book  removed  the  embarrassment  threatened 
by  the  acceptance  in  some  quarters,  and  the 
rejection  in  others,  of  this  crude  and  hasty 
compilation.  In  the  settlement  of  the  ques- 
tion of  the  Scotch  successor,  which  was  only 
indirectly  attacked,  the  conservatism  and 
Christian  courtesy  of  William  White  were 
specially  apparent.  The  opposition  to  the 
Scottish  Episcopate  was,  so  far  as  the  clerical 
deputies  were  concerned,  confined  to  the  Rev. 
Samuel  Provoost,  afterwards  first  Bishop  of 
New  York,  and  the  Rev.  Robert  Smith,  after- 
wards first  Bishop  of  South  Carolina.  Per- 
sonal and  political  prejudices  seem  to  have 
had  their  influence  in  this  attempt  to  throw 
discredit  on  the  source  whence  Seabury  had 
obtained  the  Episcopate.  The  Convention 
was  barely  organized  when  the  Rev.  Robert 
Smith  introduced  a  resolution  "That  the 
clergy  present  produce  their  Letters  of 
Orders,  or  declare  by  whom  they  were  or- 
dained." This  motion  was  aimed  at  the  Rev. 
Joseph  Pilmore,  a  convert  from  the  Metho- 
dists, who  had  received  orders  from  Seabury, 
and  the  Rev.  William  Smith  of  Stepney  Par- 


1 68  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

ish,  Maryland,  and  afterwards  of  Newport, 
Rhode  Island,  and  Norwalk,  Connecticut,  who 
had  been  ordained  in  Scotland  by  a  Bishop  of 
the  Church  from  which  Seabury  had  received 
Consecration.  The  judicious  application  of 
the  "previous  question"  prevented  the  dis- 
cussion which  it  was  anticipated  would  grow 
out  of  this  motion,  and  the  resolution  itself 
was  lost. 

Provoost,  not  satisfied  with  this  expression 
of  the  temper  of  the  Convention,  offered  the 
following  resolution:  "That  this  Convention 
will  resolve  to  do  no  act  that  shall  imply  the 
validity  of  Ordinations  made  by  Dr.  Seabury." 
Again  the  "previous  question"  cut  off  discus- 
sion, and  the  motion  itself  was  determined  in 
the  negative.  So  determined  was  the  feeling 
of  opposition  to  Dr.  Seabury  indicated  by 
these  motions,  that  action  of  some  kind  could 
not  be  avoided  and  consequently  a  compro- 
mise resolution  offered  by  Dr.  White  was 
unanimously  adopted.  This  motion  provided, 
"That  it  be  recommended  to  this  Church,  in 
the  States  here  represented,  not  to  receive  to 
the   pastoral   charge,    within   their   respective 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    169 

limits,  clergymen  professing  canonical  subjec- 
tion to  any  Bishop  in  any  state  or  country, 
other  than  those  Bishops  who  may  be  duly 
settled  in  the  states  represented  in  this  Con- 
vention." This  resolution,  as  explained  by 
Dr.  White  himself,  was  pressed  with  a  view  of 
meeting  the  charge  made  on  the  floor  of  Con- 
vention, that  clergymen  ordained  under  the 
Scotch  succession  were  under  canonical  sub- 
jection to  the  Bishop  who  ordained  them,  even 
though  they  might  reside  outside  of  the  limits 
of  his  see.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Pilmore,  the  only 
one  of  the  deputies  who  had  received  orders 
from  the  Bishop  of  Connecticut,  "denied  that 
any  such  thing  had  been  exacted  of  him,"  and 
the  resolution,  for  which,  as  Bishop  White  is 
careful  to  state,  there  was  never  "any 
ground"  other  than  "in  the  apprehension 
which  has  been  expressed,"  was  adopted  with- 
out opposition. 

On  the  following  day,  the  Rev.  Robert 
Smith  returned  to  the  subject  and  offered  the 
following  resolution  which,  evidently  regarded 
by  the  Convention,  as   Bishop  White   informs 


170  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

us,  as  a  "temperate  guarding"  against  a  pos- 
sible difficulty,  was  unanimously  adopted: 

"Resolved.  —  That  it  be  recommended  to  the 
Conventions  of  the  Church  represented  in  this 
General  Convention,  not  to  admit  any  person  as  a 
minister,  within  their  respective  limits,  who  shall 
receive  ordination  from  any  Bishop  residing  in 
America,  during  the  application  now  pending  to 
the  English  Bishops  for  Episcopal  consecration." 

This  matter  disposed  of,  the  Convention 
proceeded  to  the  consideration  of  the  letter 
from  the  English  Bishops.  Resolutions  ex- 
pressing the  "grateful  sense  of  the  Christian 
affection  and  condescension  manifested  in  this 
letter"  were  adopted,  and  with  this  acknowl- 
edgment of  the  kindness  of  the  English  prel- 
ates the  application  for  the  succession  was 
renewed,  coupled  with  fresh  assurances  of 
attachment  to  the  system  of  the  Church  of 
England.  The  reply  to  the  Archbishops  and 
Bishops  was  originally  drafted  by  Dr.  William 
Smith,  but  this  paper  being  deemed  "too  full 
of  compliment,"  it  was,  on  the  motion  of  the 
Hon.  John  Jay,  considerably  modified  in  tone 
and  language.    As  finally  adopted,  it  expressed 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    171 


a  grateful  appreciation  of  the  fatherly  senti- 
ments contained  in  this  letter  of  the  English 
prelates;  it  reiterated  the  assurance  that  there 
was  no  purpose  in  America  "of  departing 
from  the  constituent  principles  of  the  Church 
of  England;"  it  claimed  that  no  alterations  or 
omissions  had  been  made  in  the  Book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer  but  such  as  were  necessary  to 
make  it  consistent  with  the  civil  Constitutions 
or  "such  as  were  calculated  to  remove  objec- 
tions" on  the  part  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States.  The  "proposed  ecclesiastical  Consti- 
tution and  Book  of  Common  Prayer"  accom- 
panied this  renewed  request  for  the  succession, 
and  the  alterations  and  modifications  of  the 
former  made  this  second  application  more 
acceptable.  As  Bishop  White  observes,  re- 
ferring particularly  to  the  development  of  a 
more  conservative  and  Churchly  spirit,  as  seen 
in  the  fuller  recognition  of  Episcopal  character 
and  dignity,  by  this  Convention: — "In  the 
preceding  year  the  points  alluded  to  were 
determined  on  with  too  much  warmth,  and 
without  investigation  proportioned  to  the  im- 
portance  of  the    subjects.      The    decisions    of 


172  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

that  day  were  now  reversed — not  to  say  with- 
out a  division,  but — without  even  an  opposi- 
tion." It  should  not  be  forgotten  that  these 
Constitutional  changes  in  the  direction  of  con- 
servative Churchmanship  were  introduced  by 
Dr.  White  and  carried  through  his  influence. 
These  alterations  gave  to  the  Bishop,  if  pres- 
ent, the  presidency  of  the  Convention,  and 
required  the  Bishop's  presence  at  all  ecclesias- 
tical trials,  giving  to  him  the  sole  right 
of  pronouncing  the  "  sentence  of  deposition 
or  degradation  on  any  clergyman,  whether 
Bishop,  or  Presbyter,  or  Deacon." 

Bishop  White,  who  gives  us  in  his  Memoirs 
of  the  Church  the  unwritten  history  of  this 
period,  specifies  as  among  the  chief  means  of 
securing  the  moderation  in  tone  and  temper 
for  which  this  Convention  was  noticeable,  the 
presentation  of  a  memorial  from  the  Conven- 
tion of  New  Jersey,  drawn  up,  as  was  "after- 
ward learned  with  certainty,"  by  the  learned 
and  devout  Dr.  Thomas  Bradbury  Chandler  of 
Elizabethtown,  and  couched  in  language  both 
conservative  and  conclusive.  This  memorial 
urged  the   General   Convention  to   revise  the 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    173 


proceedings  of  the  meeting  of  1785  and  to 
4 'remove  every  cause  that  may  have  excited 
any  jealousy  or  fear  that  the  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America  have  any  in- 
tention or  desire  essentially  to  depart,  either 
in  doctrine  or  discipline,  from  the  Church  of 
England."  Bishop  White  regards  this  letter  as 
"among  the  causes  which  prevented  the  dis- 
oreanizincr  of"  "the  American  Church,"  since 
its  arguments  must  have  convinced  the  depu- 
ties "that  the  result  of  considerable  changes 
would  have  been  the  disunion  of  the  Church." 

Shortly  after  the  rising  of  the  Convention 
there  came  into  the  hands  of  Dr.  White  a 
communication  from  the  Archbishops  of  Can- 
terbury and  York,  which  was  followed  by  a 
letter  from  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury 
alone,  enclosing  a  recent  Act  of  Parliament 
authorizing  the  consecration  of  Bishops  for 
America.  On  the  receipt  of  these  letters,  the 
committee  appointed  for  this  purpose  con- 
vened the  Convention  at  Wilmington,  Dela- 
ware, on  the  10th  of  October. 

The  Archbishops  prefaced  their  words  with 
an   earnest  deprecation.      It   is   "impossible," 


174  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

write  the  prelates,  "not  to  observe  with  con- 
cern, that  if  the  essential  doctrines  of  our 
common  faith  were  retained,  less  respect, 
however,  was  paid  to  our  Liturgy  than  its 
own  excellence,  and  your  declared  attachment 
to  it,  had  led  us  to  expect;  not  to  mention  a 
variety  of  verbal  alterations,  of  the  necessity 
or  propriety  of  which  we  are  by  no  means 
satisfied,  we  saw  with  grief  that  two  of  the 
Confessions  of  our  Christian  faith,  respectable 
for  their  antiquity,  have  been  entirely  laid 
aside;  and  that  even  in  that  called  the  Apos- 
tles' Creed,  an  article  is  omitted  which  was 
thought  necessary  to  be  inserted,  with  a  view 
to  a  particular  heresy,  in  a  very  early  age  of 
the  Church,  and  has  ever  since  had  the  vener- 
able sanction  of  universal  reception."  The 
letter  announced  the  application  of  the  Bish- 
ops for  the  passage  of  an  Act  of  Parliament 
authorizing  the  consecrations  desired.  This 
step  was  taken  in  the  expectation  that  their 
representations  would  secure  the  modification 
of  the  radical  action  of  the  American  Conven- 
tion. Great  stress  was  laid  upon  the  necessity 
of  affording  "the  most  decisive  proofs  of  the 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    175 

qualifications"  of  those  recommended  for  con- 
secration. The  Bishops  called  upon  the  Con- 
vention, before  the  Bishops-elect  should  make 
the  subscription  required  by  the  tenth  article 
of  the  proposed  ecclesiastical  Constitution,  to 
"restore  to  its  integrity  the  Apostles'  Creed;" 
"to  give  to  the  other  two  Creeds  a  place"  in 
the  Prayer  Book,  "even  though  the  use  of 
them  should  be  left  discretional;"  and  to  make 
some  alteration  in  the  eighth  article  of  the 
ecclesiastical  Constitution,  removing  what  ap- 
peared to  the  Bishops  "to  be  a  degradation 
of  the  clerical,  and  still  more  of  the  Episcopal 
character." 

The  solicitude  of  the  Bishops  respecting  the 
"purity  of  manners"  of  those  recommended 
for  consecration,  led  them  to  require  "the 
most  effectual  securities:"  and  forms  of  testi- 
monial, to  be  signed  by  the  General  and 
State  Conventions,  accompanied  the  letter, 
which  have  been  ever  since,  and  are  still,  in 
use  in  the  American  Church.  These  testi- 
monials, Bishop  White  assures  us,  gave 
"general  satisfaction."  "The  General  Con- 
vention," continues  Bishop  White,   "had   not 


176  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

been  without  apprehensions,  that  some  un- 
suitable character,  as  to  morals,  might  be 
elected:  and  yet  for  them  to  have  assumed  a 
control  might  have  been  an  improper  inter- 
ference with  the  Churches  in  the  individual 
States." 

It  is  at  this  point,  and  evidently  calling  up 
to  mind  the  grave  issues  depending  on  the 
proper  action  at  this  critical  moment,  that 
Bishop  White,  in  his  Memoirs  of  the  Church, 
interrupts  the  narrative  with  the  paragraph 
we  quote: 

"The  question  to  be  determined  on  at  the  pres- 
ent session  was:  Whether  the  American  Church 
would  avail  herself  of  the  opportunity  of  obtain- 
ing the  Episcopacy;  which  had  been  so  earnestly 
desired,  ever  since  the  settlement  of  the  colonies; 
the  want  of  which  had  been  so  long  complained 
of,  and  which  was  now  held  out  in  offer.  When 
the  author  considers  how  much,  besides  the  pre- 
ference due  to  Episcopal  government,  the  contin- 
uance or  the  restoration  of  divine  worship  in  the 
almost  deserted  churches,  their  very  existence  as 
a  society,  and  of  course  the  interests  of  religion 
and  virtue,  were  concerned  in  the  issue,  he  looks 
back  with  a  remnant  of  uneasy  sensation  at  the 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    177 

hazard  which  this  question  run;  and  at  the  proba- 
bility which  then  threatened,  that  the  determina- 
tion might  be  contrary  to  what  took  place."* 

We  may  well  pause  in  our  review  of  these 
proceedings  to  note  the  fact  that  it  was  to 
William  White's  patient  persistency,  modera- 
tion, forbearance  and  conservatism,  that  the 
issue  at  this  epochal  period  was  such  as  gave 
to  us,  in  its  completeness  and  Catholicity,  the 
American  Church. 

On  the  assembling  of  the  adjourned  Con- 
vention at  Wilmington,  Delaware,  the  papers 
from  England  were  referred  to  a  committee  of 
which  Dr.  White  was  evidently  the  leading 
member.  This  committee,  we  are  told  by 
Bishop  White,  ''sat  up  the  whole  of  the  suc- 
ceeding night,  digesting  the  determinations  in 
the  form  in  which  they  appear  on  the  Jour- 
nal." These  conclusions  were  comprised  in  a 
paper  entitled  "An  Act  of  the  General  Con- 
vention of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  in  the  States  of 
New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Dela- 

*  White's  Memoirs  of  the  Church,  De  Costa's  ed.,  p.  138. 


178  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

ware,  and  South  Carolina,  held  at  Wilmington, 
in  the  State  of  Delaware,  on  Wednesday,  the 
nth  of  October,  1786."  This  Act,  after 
reciting  the  precedent  circumstances  of  the 
organization  and  conventional  action  of  the 
American  Church,  proceeds  to  "determine 
and  declare" — 

"First,  That  in  the  Creed  commonly  called  the 
Apostles'  Creed,  these  words,  'He  descended  into 
Hell,'  shall  be  and  continue  a  part  of  that  Creed. 

"Secondly,  That  the  Nicene  Creed  shall  also 
be  inserted  in  the  said  Book  of  Common  Prayer, 
immediately  after  the  Apostles'  Creed,  prefaced 
with  the  Rubric  (or  this). 

"And  whereas,  In  consequence  of  the  objec- 
tions expressed  by  their  Lordships  to  the  altera- 
tions in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  last  men- 
tioned, the  Conventions  in  some  of  the  States 
represented  in  this  General  Convention  have 
suspended  the  ratification  and  use  of  the  said 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  by  reason  whereof  it 
will  be  improper  that  persons  to  be  consecrated 
or  ordained  as  Bishops,  Priests,  or  Deacons 
respectively,  should  subscribe  the  declaration 
contained  in  the  Tenth  Article  of  the  General 
Ecclesiastical  Constitution,  without  some  modifi- 
cation: 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    179 

"Therefore,  it  is  hereby  determined  and  de- 
clared, Thirdly,  That  the  second  clause  so  to  be 
subscribed  by  a  Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon  of  this 
Church  in  any  of  the  States  which  have  not  al- 
ready ratified  or  used  the  last-mentioned  Book  of 
Common  Prayer,  shall  be  in  the  words  following: 

"And  I  do  solemnly  engage  to  conform  to  the 
doctrine  and  worship  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  according  to  the  use  of  the  Church  of 
England,  as  the  same  is  altered  by  the  General 
Convention,  in  a  certain  instrument  of  writing 
passed  by  their  authority  intitled,  'Alterations  in 
the  Liturgy  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America,  in  order  to  render 
the  same  conformable  to  the  American  Revolution 
and  the  Constitutions  of  the  respective  States,' 
until  the  new  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  recom- 
mended by  the  General  Convention,  shall  be  rati- 
fied or  used  in  the  State  in  which  I  am — (Bishop, 
Priest,  or  Deacon,  as  the  case  may  be) — by  the 
authority  of  the  Convention  thereof.  And  I  do 
further  solemnly  engage  that  when  the  said  new 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  shall  be  ratified  or  used 
by  the  authority  of  the  Convention  in  the  State  for 
which  I  am  consecrated  a  Bishop — (or  ordained  a 
Priest  or  Deacon) — I  will  conform  to  the  doctrines 
and  worship  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 


i8o  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

as  settled  and  determined  in  the  last-mentioned 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  and  Administration  of 
the  Sacraments,  set  forth  by  the  General  Conven- 
tion of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States. 

"And  it  is  hereby  further  determined  and  de- 
clared, 

"That  these  words  in  the  Preface  to  the  new 
proposed  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  viz:  in  the 
Creed  commonly  called  'the  Apostles'  Creed,'  one 
clause  is  omitted  as  being  of  uncertain  meaning, 
and — together  with  the  note  referred  to  in  that 
place,  be  from  henceforth  no  part  of  the  Preface 
to  the  said  proposed  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 

"And  it  is  hereby  further  determined  and  de- 
clared, 

"That  the  Fourth  Article  of  Religion  in  the 
new  proposed  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  be  altered 
to  render  it  conformable  to  the  adoption  of  the 
Nicene  Creed,  as  follows:  'Of  the  Creeds.  The 
two  Creeds,  namely,  that  commonly  called  the 
Apostles'  Creed  and  the  Nicene  Creed,  ought  to 
be  received  and  believed  because  they,'  etc.,  etc." 

On  the  first  vote — the  question  being  the 
restoring  of  the  words  "He  descended  into 
Hell"    to    the   Apostles'   Creed  —  New    York, 


Co?istitution  of  the  American  Church.    181 

Pennsylvania,  and  Delaware  were  divided. 
New  Jersey  and  South  Carolina  voted  aye. 
As  the  divided  States  did  not  count,  there 
were  two  ayes  and  no  negatives  and  the  words 
were  restored. 

The  Nicene  Creed  was  restored  unani- 
mously. On  the  question,  "Shall  the  Creed 
commonly  called  the  Athanasian  Creed  be 
admitted  in  the  Liturgy  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America?"  New  Jersey  and  Delaware  were 
divided  and  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  and 
South  Carolina  voted  in  the  negative.  Mary- 
land, represented  by  a  clerical  deputy  only, 
the  Rev.  Dr.  William  Smith,  was  at  the  outset 
declared  not  admitted  to  the  Convention,  and 
was  allowed  no  vote  on  these  important  mat- 
ters. 

A  brief  address  to  the  Archbishops  was 
prepared  and  adopted.  The  testimonials  of 
Dr.  White,  Bishop-elect  of  Pennsylvania,  Dr. 
Provoost,  Bishop-elect  of  New  York,  and  Dr. 
Griffith,  Bishop-elect  of  Virginia,  were  signed, 
and    a    Committee    of    Correspondence,    with 


4 

1 82  The  General  Ecclesiastical 


power  to  convene  another  General  Conven- 
tion, was  appointed. 

Although  it  does  not  appear  on  the  Jour- 
nals, and  no  direct  reference  to  the  circum- 
stance can  be  found  in  Bishop  White's  account 
of  this  Convention  in  his  Memoirs  of  the 
Church,  the  voluminous  correspondence  of 
this  period,  preserved  in  the  archives  of  the 
General  Convention,  acquaints  us  with  the 
fact  that  the  Wilmington  Convention,  while 
availing  itself  of  the  presence  and  the  abilities 
of  Dr.  William  Smith,  Bishop-elect  of  Mary- 
land, refused  to  sign  the  testimonial  required, 
recommending  him  for  consecration.  It  ap- 
pears, from  letters  still  on  file,  that  two  mem- 
bers only  of  the  Convention  voted  in  favor  of 
Dr.  Smith's  application  for  recommendation, 
and  that  the  opposition  was  based  on  moral 
grounds. 

The  end  desired  was  near  at  hand.  The 
Bishops-elect  of  Pennsylvania  and  New  York 
set  sail  for  England  early  in  November,  1786, 
and  arrived  at  Falmouth  on  the  21st  of  that 
month.  We  need  not  trace  the  story  of  the 
successful  accomplishment  of  the  long  struggle 


Cons titu Hon  of  th e  A  ?nerica n  Ch u rch .    183 

for  the  Episcopate  in  the  English  line,  as  it  is 
detailed  at  length  in  the  pages  of  Bishop 
White's  Memoirs  of  the  Church.  It  is  enough 
to  say,  that  on  the  4th  day  of  February, 
1787,  at  Lambeth  Chapel,  at  the  hands  of  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  Dr.  Moore,  the 
Archbishop  of  York,  Dr.  Markham,  the  Bishop 
of  Bath  and  Wells,  Dr.  Moss,  and  the  Bishop 
of  Peterborough,  Dr.  Hinchcliffe,  William 
White  and  Samuel  Provoost  were  duly  and 
canonically,  by  the  laying  on  of  hands,  made 
Bishops  of  the  Church  of  God. 

At  length  the  struggle  for  an  American 
Episcopate  was  ended.  There  were  now 
three  Bishops  of  the  American  Church  — 
Seabury  of  Connecticut,  White  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, and  Provoost  of  New  York. 

It  was  a  happy  omen  for  the  newly  organ- 
ized American  Church  that  the  Bishops  of 
Pennsylvania  and  New  York  reached  their 
native  land  amidst  the  Easter  festivities  of 
the  year  1787.  The  Church  in  America  was 
now  complete.  There  only  remained  the 
consolidation  of  the  Churches  of  the  North 
with  those  of  the  Middle  and  Southern  States 


184  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

in  one  organization,  and  the  adjustment  in 
the  general  ecclesiastical  Constitution  of  the 
united  Churches  of  those  principles  and 
practices  which  were  still  unsettled. 

Directly  on  the  return  of  the  newly  conse- 
crated Bishops  to  their  homes,  the  Bishop  of 
Connecticut  addressed  to  each  letters  of  con- 
gratulation, adding  expressions  of  his  earnest 
desire  to  promote  ''uniformity  in  worship  and 
discipline  among  the  Churches  of  the  different 
States."  Referring  to  the  "present  unsettled 
state  of  the  Church  of  England  in  this  country 
and  the  necessity  of  union  and  concord  among 
all  its  members  in  the  United  States  of  Amer- 
ica, not  only  to  give  stability  to  it,  but  to  fix 
it  on  its  true  and  proper  foundation,"  Bishop 
Seabury  proposed  that  a  meeting  of  the  three 
Bishops  should  be  held,  "before  any  decided 
steps  be  taken,"  and  suggested  as  a  basis  of 
union  and  comprehension  a  return  to  the 
English  Prayer  Book,  "accommodating  it  to 
the  civil  Constitution  of  the  United  States." 
"The  government  of  the  Church,"  he  adds, 
"is  already  settled;  a  body  of  canons  will, 
however,  be  wanted  to  give  energy  to  the  gov- 


Constitution  of  t lie  American  Church.    185 

ernment  and  ascertain  its  operation."  The 
terms  of  union  thus  suggested  were  simply  an 
affirmation  of  the  "fundamental  principle" 
adopted  in  New  York  in  October,  1784,  re- 
specting the  Prayer  Book.  In  the  view  of 
Seabury,  other  differences  could  be  settled  by 
conference,  and  this  meeting  of  the  Bishops, 
he  was  confident,  "would  promote  the  great 
object — the  union  of  all  the  Churches."  "May 
God  direct  us  in  all  things,"  was  his  closing 
prayer.  In  making  these  fraternal  overtures, 
Seabury  was  evidently  influenced  solely  by 
his  earnest  desire  for  union  and  uniformity. 
He  already  occupied  a  position  of  absolute 
independence.  Welcomed  by  the  clergy  and 
warmly  supported  by  the  laity,  his  Episcopal 
character  had  been  recognized  throughout 
New  England,  which  had  become,  practically, 
his  province,  and  through  which,  from  Stam- 
ford and  Norwalk  in  Connecticut,  to  Ports- 
mouth, New  Hampshire,  he  journeyed,  con- 
firming, ordaining,  and  setting  in  order  the 
Churches  owing  allegiance  to  his  office  and  to 
himself.  He  had  exercised  his  Episcopate  in 
New  York  in  spite  of  the  secret  opposition  of 


1 86  The  GeneralcEcclesiastical 

the.  irate  Provoost.  Candidates  for  ordination 
from  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania  and  the  South- 
ern States  had  sought  from  him  the  laying  on 
of  hands.  There  was  no  dissention  among 
his  clergy;  no  factious  opposition  among  his 
laity.  The  Wallingford  Convocation  of  the 
Connecticut  clergy,  held  in  February  of  this 
year,  resenting  the  affronts  they  deemed  di- 
rected at  their  Bishop  at  the  Philadelphia 
Convention,  had  determined  to  send  one  from 
their  number  to  Scotland  to  receive  consecra- 
tion as  coadjutor  to  Seabury;  and  Learning 
and  Mansfield  were  successively  chosen  to 
undertake  this  office,  while  on  their  unwilling- 
ness, in  consequence  of  age  and  infirmities,  to 
assume  this  responsibility,  the  choice  fell  on 
Jarvis,  afterward  to  be  the  one  to  fill  the  place 
of  Seabury.  At  the  same  time  measures  were 
put  in  train  to  secure  in  Massachusetts  the 
election  of  Parker  as  Bishop  of  the  Church  in 
that  State  and  in  New  Hampshire,  that  thus 
the  college  of  Bishops  in  the  Scottish  line  of 
succession  might  be  complete  and  any  neces- 
sity of  union  with  the  Churches  at  the  south- 
ward  for  the  consecration   of  Bishops  in  the 


Co?istitittion  of  the  American  Church.    187 

time  to  come,  removed.  The  correspondence 
of  this  period  affords  abundant  proof  that  the 
great  body  of  the  Churches  and  Churchmen  of 
New  England  shared  in  this  feeling  of  resent- 
ment and  were  ready  for  the  initiation  of  meas- 
ures for  perpetuating  the  separation  and  antag- 
onism which  seemed  inevitable.  There  was 
every  prospect  that  there  would  speedily  be 
in  this  country  two  rival  Episcopal  Churches, 
each  possessing  the  Apostolical  Succession, 
but  at  variance  with  each  other  in  doctrine,  in 
ritual,  and  in  practises.  Had  Seabury  listened 
to  the  urgings  of  his  clergy  at  home  and  his 
correspondents  both  in  this  country  and 
abroad,  this  deplorable  result  would  have  oc- 
curred. Union  would  soon  have  become  im- 
possible, and  the  Church  in  the  United  States 
— an  house  divided  against  itself — would  have 
been  at  the  mercy  of  old  foes  and  new,  each 
and  all  bent  alike  on  its  utter  overthrow. 

It  is  in  this  connection  that  we  cannot  fail 
to  recognize  and  admire  the  wise  conserva- 
tism, the  marked  self-abnegation,  the  patient 
forbearance  of  the  first  Bishop  of  Connecticut. 
He  was  already  practically,  —  he  might  soon 


1 88  The  General  Ecclesiastical 


have  been  in  fact  and  name, — the  "Primus"  of 
the  Church  in  New  England,  closely  affiliated 
with  the  Scottish  Communion  from  which  its 
orders  were  derived,  and  reproducing  at  the 
outset  of  the  history  of  the  New  England 
Episcopal  Church  the  distinctive  principles 
of  the  body  whence  it  sprang.  It  was  his 
choice  rather,  for  the  "great  object"  he  had 
at  heart,  "the  union  of  all  the  Churches,"  to 
enter  into  a  union  in  which  he  was  to  be  from 
the  start  in  a  hopeless  minority.  We  find 
him,  therefore,  restraining  the  impetuosity  of 
his  clergy  and  his  friends  and  sympathizers 
outside  of  Connecticut.  We  find  him  making 
most  friendly  and  courteous  overtures  to  the 
Bishop  of  New  York,  who  had  attacked  him  in 
public  and  in  private,  and  who  cherished  an 
unreasonable  personal  animosity  towards  him. 
He  renewed  again  and  again  these  efforts  for 
union  and  comprehension,  and  at  length  God, 
who  maketh  men  to  be  of  one  mind  in  an 
house,  rewarded  his  self-denying,  self-forget- 
ing  endeavors  and  made  him  for  the  last  few 
years  of  his  earthly  life  the  Presiding  Bishop 
of  an  united  American  Church. 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church,    i  <Sq 

In  these  efforts  of  Seabury  for  union,  Wil- 
liam White  was  an  earnest  and  able  seconder. 
Recognizing  from  the  start  the  official  char- 
acter and  the  Christian  courtesy  of  Seabury, 
the  Bishop  of  Pennsylvania,  while  careful  to 
secure  the  features  of  our  ecclesiastical  system 
he  had  formulated  in  The  Case  of  the  Epis- 
copal Churches  Considered,  was  ever  ready 
to  further  the  schemes  of  Seabury  for  the 
comprehension  of  "all  the  Churches"  in  one 
organization  comprising  the  Churches  in 
every  State.  Without  this  seconding,  Sea- 
bury's  efforts  would  have  been  of  no  avail. 
The  personal  animosity  of  Provoost,  the  mach- 
inations of  the  able  and  unscrupulous  William 
Smith,  the  lax  Churchmanship  and  doctrinal 
unsoundness  prevailing  in  various  sections  of 
the  Church  and  uniting  in  efforts  to  render 
the  Episcopal  Office  as  powerless  as  possible: 
— all  these  obstacles  to  union  were  to  be  over- 
come, and  in  the  successful  struggle  it  was 
William  White  who  contributed  the  most  of 
labor  and  influence  to  secure  the  desired  result. 

It  is  of  interest  to  note  the  hand  of  God 
hedging  up  the   way  to  the  completion  of  the 


190  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

Episcopal  college  in  the  English  line  until,  in 
His  good  time,  both  a  disposition  for  union 
had  become  general  and  measures  to  effect 
this  end  were  in  train.  The  amiable  and  de- 
voted Griffith,  the  friend  of  Washington,  and 
doubtless  the  most  worthy  of  the  Virginia 
clergy,  was  the  choice  of  the  Convention  of 
that  State  for  Bishop,  and  his  papers  were 
favorably  passed  upon  by  the  adjourned  Gen- 
eral Convention  at  Wilmington,  in  1786. 

But  this  excellent  man  found  his  intended 
journey  to  England  hindered  and  finally  pre- 
vented by  the  indifference  of  the  parishes, 
leading  them  to  withhold  their  contributions 
for  its  accomplishment.  Even  when  the  gen- 
erous aid  of  William  White  was  offered  to 
remove  this  obstacle,  the  coldness  of  the  clergy 
toward  their  Bishop -elect  made  it  evident 
that  they  feared  both  his  piety  and  zeal  for 
the  Church,  should  he  ever  enter  upon  the 
Episcopate  to  which  their  suffrages  had  called 
him.  There  followed,  as  appears  from  the 
unpublished  correspondence  of  Dr.  Griffith 
with  Bishop  White,  a  series  of  petty  but  an- 
noying persecutions  which,  as  detailed  in  these 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    191 

letters,  reveal  a  lamentable  laxity  in  doctrine, 
and  even  in  morals,  existing  in  the  Virginia 
Church.  It  is  a  pitiful  story,  and  of  interest 
alone  in  showing  a  conspiracy  of  ministers  and 
members  of  the  Episcopal  Church  designed  to 
destroy  the  efficiency,  if  not  the  very  exist- 
ence, of  the  Episcopate,  the  powers  of  which 
they  evidently  felt  would  be  at  once  exercised 
for  their  punishment. 

These  annoying  hindrances  at  length  wore 
out  the  patience  of  Griffith  and  wrung  from 
him  the  resignation  of  the  office  he  had  never 
sought,  but  which  he  would  have  adorned  and 
honored.  It  was  not  till  after  the  death  of 
Griffith  and  the  return  of  the  Bishops  of 
Pennsylvania  and  New  York  from  their  suc- 
cessful journey  to  England,  that  the  scholarly 
Madison,  the  President  of  William  and  Mary 
College,  was  chosen  to  the  Episcopate  of  Vir- 
ginia and  sent  to  England  to  complete  the 
college  in  the  English  line. 

In  Maryland,  the  Church,  which  had  been 
the  first  in  taking  steps  for  organization,  was 
now  even  further  removed  from  any  hope  of 
obtaining  the  Episcopate  than  was  Virginia. 


192  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

The  adjourned  General  Convention  of  1786, 
held  at  Wilmington,  at  which  the  testimonials 
of  Drs.  White,  Provoost  and  Griffith,  recom- 
mending them  to  the  English  Archbishops 
and  Bishops  for  consecration,  had  been  duly 
signed,  had  refused,  as  we  have  seen,  to 
recommend  Dr.  William  Smith  for  the  Epis- 
copate. This  action,  taken  in  opposition  to 
the  plans  and  purposes  of  perhaps  the  fore- 
most man  in  point  of  ability  of  the  American 
Church,  in  consequence  of  a  general  conviction 
that  he  was  far  from  being  blameless  in  life 
and  conversation,  effectually  prevented  any 
further  election  in  Maryland,  as  the  Conven- 
tion was  to  a  large  extent  under  the  control 
of  this  unhappy  man.  In  Delaware  there 
was  too  little  Church  life  to  move  in  the 
matter  of  securing  an  Episcopal  head,  al- 
though among  the  few  clergymen  of  this 
State,  there  was  one,  the  Rev.  Charles  Henry 
Wharton,  the  first  convert  to  true  Catholicity 
from  Romanism  of  the  independent  American 
Church,  who  was  both  worthy  of  the  Episco- 
pate, and  would  have  adorned  the  office. 
South   Carolina   desired    no   Bishop,    and    the 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    193 

Church   in    North   Carolina  was  too  feeble   to 
attempt  to  secure  one.      It  was  much  the  same 
in  Georgia,  where  the  labors  of  the   Wesleys 
and  Whitefield  had  left  hardly  a  trace  behind, 
while    in    Florida   the   Church    had    ceased   to 
exist.      In  New  Jersey,  personal  controversies 
between    the    leading    clergy,    resulting    from 
intrigues  on  the  part  of  Uzal  Ogden  to  obtain 
the  Episcopate,  plunged  the  Church  into  con- 
fusion and  strife.      It  was  evident  that  there 
must   be    means    found    for   drawing   together 
the  Churches  at  the  North  owning  Seabury  as 
their  Episcopal  head,  and  the  Churches  of  the 
Middle    and    Southern    States    which,    having 
secured  in  part  their  desire  in  the  introduction 
of  the  Episcopate  in  the  English  line,  seemed 
averse  to  further  effort  in  this  direction,  if  not 
half-hearted  in  their  appreciation  of  the  gifts 
and  grace  already  obtained. 

The  Bishop  of  Connecticut,  in  a  letter  to  an 
English  correspondent  shortly  after  his  over- 
tures to  Bishops  White  and  Provoost,  on  their 
return  from  England,  alludes  to  these  letters 
as  follows:  "I  know  not  what  effect  this  over- 
ture may  have.  But  my  fears  are  greater 
13 


194  The  General  Ecclesiastical 


than  my  hopes.  Everything  I  can  fairly  do 
to  procure  union  and  uniformity,  shall  cer- 
tainly be  done."  There  is  no  evidence  that 
Bishop  Provoost  even  acknowledged  this 
courteous  advance  of  Seabury. 

Bishop  White's  reply  is  preserved  to  us  by 
a  copy  made  of  its  contents  and  forwarded  by 
him  to  his  friend  and  supporter,  Parker,  the 
rector  of  Trinity  Church,  Boston,  among 
whose  correspondence  it  was  found.  In  this 
characteristic  letter  Bishop  White  begins  with 
the  assurance  that  " there  is  nothing"  he  has 
"more  at  heart  than  to  see  the  members  of 
our  Communion  throughout  the  United  States 
connected  in  one  system  of  Ecclesiastical 
government."  He  professed  his  readiness  to 
make  the  proposed  journey  for  "the  accom- 
plishment of  this  great  object,"  but  added  that 
he  thought  it  "best  previously  to  understand 
one  another,  as  to  the  views  of  the  Churches 
in  which  we  respectively  preside."  With  this 
purpose  in  view,  Bishop  White  submits  the 
following  paragraph,  which  we  quote  in  full: — 

"We  have  been  informed  (but  perhaps  it  is  a 
mistake)  that  the  Bishop  and  Clergy  of  Connecti- 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    195 

cut  think  our  proposed  Ecclesiastical  Constitution 
essentially  wrong  in  the  leading  parts  of  it.  As 
the  general  principles  on  which  it  is  founded  were 
maturely  considered  and  compared  with  the  max- 
ims which  prevail  in  the  ecclesiastical  system  of 
England;  as  they  have  received  the  approbation 
of  all  the  Conventions  southward  of  you,  and  of 
one  to  the  northward;*  as  they  were  not  objected 
to  by  the  Archbishops  and  Bishops  of  the  English 
Church,  and  as  they  are  generally  thought  among 
us  essential  to  the  giving  effect  to  future  Ecclesi- 
astical measures,  I  do  not  expect  to  find  the 
Churches  in  many  of  the  States  willing  to 
associate  on  any  plan  materially  differing  from 
this.  If  our  brethren  in  Connecticut  should  be  of 
opinion  that  the  giving  of  any  share  of  the 
legislative  power  of  the  Church  to  others  than 
those  of  the  Episcopal  order  is  inconsistent  with 
Episcopal  government,  and  that  the  requiring  of 
the  consent  of  the  laity  to  Ecclesiastical  laws  is 
an  invasion  of  clerical  rights,  — in  this  case,  I  see 
no  prospect  of  doing  good  in  any  other  way  than 

*  Bishop  White  here  refers  to  Massachusetts,  the  Con- 
vention of  which  at  first  showed  a  willingness  to  follow  the 
lead  of  the  Southern  and  Middle  States,  but  on  the  return 
to  America  of  Seabury  with  Episcopal  powers,  at  once 
transferred  its  allegiance  to  him. 


196  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

contributing  all  in  my  power  to  promote  a  spirit 
of  love  and  peace  between  us;  although  I  shall 
continue  to  cultivate  the  hope  of  our  being 
brought,  at  some  future  day,  to  an  happy  agree- 
ment." 

With  reference  to  the  return  to  the  English 
Prayer  Book,  which  would  necessarily  involve 
the  rejection  of  the  Proposed  Book,  Bishop 
White  expressed  himself  at  length  as  follows: 

"As  to  the  Liturgy,  if  it  should  be  thought 
advisable  by  the  general  body  of  our  Church  to 
adhere  to  the  English  Book  of  Common  Prayer 
(the  political  parts  excepted),  I  shall  be  one  of 
the  first,  after  the  appearance  of  such  a  dispo- 
sition, to  comply  with  it  most  punctually.  Fur- 
ther than  this,  if  it  should  seem  the  most  probable 
way  of  maintaining  an  agreement  among  ourselves, 
I  shall  use  my  best  endeavours  to  effect  it.  At 
the  same  time,  I  must  candidly  confess  my  opin- 
ion, that  the  review  of  the  liturgy  would  tend  very 
much  to  the  satisfaction  of  most  of  the  members 
of  our  Communion,  and  to  its  future  success  and 
prosperity.  The  worst  evil  which  I  apprehend 
from  a  refusal  to  review  is  this,  that  it  will  give  a 
great  advantage  to  those  who  wish  to  carry  the 
alterations  into  essential  points  of  doctrine.     Re- 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    197 

vised  it  will  unquestionably  be  in  some  places, 
and  the  only  way  to  prevent  its  being  done  by 
men  of  the  above  description  is  the  taking  it  up 
as  a  general  business.  I  have  been  informed  that 
you,  Sir,  and  our  brethren  in  Connecticut  think  a 
review  expedient,  although  you  wish  not  to  be  in 
haste  in  the  matter.  Our  brethren  in  Massachu- 
setts have  already  done  it.  The  Churches  in  the 
States  southward  of  you  have  sufficiently  declared 
their  sentiments;  for  even  those  which  have 
delayed  permitting  the  use  of  the  new  book,  did 
it  merely  on  the  principle  of  the  want  of  the 
Episcopal  order  among  them." 

This  important  letter,  itself  a  most  im- 
portant contribution  to  the  hastening  union 
of  the  Churches,  concluded  as  follows: — 

"If  we  should  be  of  a  different  opinion  in  any 
matter,  I  hope  we  shall  be  so  candid  as  mutually 
to  think  it  consistent  with  the  best  intentions  and 
a  sincere  desire  to  promote  the  interests  of  our 
holy  religion.  This  justice  you  have  always  re- 
ceived from       *        *        *       William  White." 

At  the  very  time  when  this  letter  was 
written,  the  Virginia  Convention  was  debat- 
ing the  proposition  that  Bishops  White  and 
Provoost  should   be   asked   to   unite   with   the 


198  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

Bishop  of  Connecticut  in  consecrating  Dr. 
Griffith,  thus  rendering  unnecessary  the  ex- 
pense and  delay  of  a  voyage  to  England  for 
this  purpose.  This  project,  after  discussion, 
was  decided  to  be  "impracticable,"  and  the 
Standing  Committee  was  instructed  to  re- 
quest Bishops  White  and  Provoost,  or  either 
of  them,  to  consecrate  a  Bishop  for  Virginia. 
It  was  the  conviction  of  Dr.  Griffith  that  the 
question  of  expense  was  not  the  real  reason 
for  resorting  to  this  expedient.  It  was,  he 
writes  to  Bishop  White,  the  "wish  to  prevent, 
if  possible,  the  introduction  of  a  Bishop  into 
the  State."  That  this  was  the  purpose  of 
those  who  were  active  in  their  opposition  to 
the  consecration  of  the  excellent  Griffith  is 
evident  from  their  further  procedure.  They 
proposed  "such  alterations  in  the  Canons  as 
would  deprive  the  Bishop  of  the  right  of 
judging  of  the  qualifications  of  candidates  for 
Orders,"  and  would  "even  compel  him  to 
ordain  such  as  were  offered  by  any  two  Pres- 
byters though  himself  should  not  approve  of 
them."  They  proceeded  "to  assert  the  equal- 
ity of    Bishops    and    Presbyters    in    primitive 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    199 

times,"  and  made  attempts  to  deprive  the 
Bishop  of  his  "right  of  precedency  in  Eccle- 
siastical assemblies."  "What  more,"  writes 
the  astonished  Griffith,  "could  the  most 
zealous  Presbyterian  have  proposed  to  abolish 
all  distinction  in  the  Orders  of  the  Ministry, 
and  overturn  the  Episcopal  Church?"  In  view 
of  difficulties  in  the  way  of  his  success,  and 
fearing  that  the  triumph  of  "the  junto  of 
innovators"  would  destroy  the  Church,  Griffith 
"determined  to  persevere,  considering  it 
absolutely  necessary  for  the  defence  and 
furtherance  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  Vir- 
ginia" that  a  Bishop  should  be  at  its  head. 
Still,  the  requisite  means  for  the  voyage  to 
England  were  not  forth -coming.  Various 
schemes  for  supplying  this  lack  were  proposed 
and  abandoned.  There  was,  as  Griffith  sor- 
rowfully admits,  "indifference  in  this  part  of 
the  world  towards  everything  connected  with 
religion." 

The  application  of  the  Standing  Committee 
of  Virginia  to  the  Bishops  of  Pennsylvania 
and  New  York  for  the  consecration  of  their 
Bishop-elect  met  with  a  prompt  refusal.      De- 


200  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

spairing  of  the  completion  of  the  Episcopal 
college  in  the  English  line,  Bishop  White,  a 
few  weeks  later,  under  date  of  July  5,  1787, 
wrote  to  the  rector  of  Trinity  Church,  Boston, 
the  Rev.  Samuel  Parker,  as  follows: 

"I  wish  most  sincerely  that  Massachusetts 
would  unite  with  us,  and  choose  a  person  for  con- 
secration; not  merely  as  it  would  tend  to  cement 
the  Church  throughout  the  whole  continent,  but 
because  it  would  add  to  the  wisdom  of  our  deter- 
minations whenever  a  General  Convention  shall 
be  held  for  the  final  settlement  of  our  Ecclesias- 
tical system." 

In  pursuance  of  these  new  plans  the  Bishop 
of  Pennsylvania  entered  into  correspondence 
with  the  venerable  Jeremiah  Learning,  himself 
twice  tendered  by  the  suffrages  of  his  brethren 
an  election  to  the  Episcopal  office.  Learning- 
had  been  active  in  the  measures  already  taken 
by  the  Connecticut  clergy  to  induce  Parker  to 
seek  consecration  in  Scotland  and  thus,  with 
Jarvis  as  coadjutor  to  Seabury,  complete  the 
Episcopal  college  in  the  Scottish  line.  Al- 
ready Learning  had  renewed  his  approaches 
to   Parker  to  accept  the   Episcopate,   but   the 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    201 

reply  was  prompt  and  decisive:  "In  answer 
to  the  latter  part  of  your  letter,  I  can  only  say 
two  words,  Nolo  Episcopari."  In  replying  to 
Bishop  White's  advances,  Learning  urged  a 
speedy  conference  of  the  three  Bishops,  Sea- 
bury,  White,  and  Provoost.  He  claimed  that 
the  Church  of  England  was  the  "best  model" 
for  imitation  and  denied  the  right  of  man  to 
alter  "the  being  and  constitution  of  a  Chris- 
tian Church,"  of  which  the  faith,  the  ordi- 
nances and  officers  were,  in  his  judgment, 
"divine."  "The  Church  in  this  State,"  he 
proceeds,  "would  be  pleased  to  have  the  old 
forms  altered  as  little  as  may  be;  but  for  the 
sake  of  a  union  they  will  comply  as  far  as  they 
possibly  can."  Parker,  in  reply  to  the  letter 
from  Bishop  White  to  which  we  have  already 
referred,  added  to  his  statement  that  "nothing- 
will  be  determined  in  this  state  respecting  a 
bishop  till  we  see  how  matters  are  settled 
between  you  and  the  Bishop  of  Connecticut," 
the  inquiry  as  to  the  prospect  of  Dr.  Griffith's 
obtaining  consecration,  and  whether,  in  the 
event  of  an  election  in  Massachusetts,  the 
Southern    Bishops   would    unite   with   Seabur) 


202  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

in  the  act  of  consecration.  The  correspon- 
dence between  Bishop  White  and  Learning 
continued.  The  aged  Connecticut  Priest 
wrote  with  singular  insistence  to  Bishop 
White,  "You  are  the  only  person  who  can 
prepare  the  way  to  effect  this  scheme."  The 
personal  opposition  of  the  Bishop  of  New 
York  to  Seabury,  —  arising  from  political 
grounds,  —  seemed  now  the  chief  hindrance  in 
the  way  of  that  friendly  conference  of  the 
Bishops  which  it  was  thought  by  all  would 
result  in  a  speedy  return  to  unity.  It  was  at 
this  juncture  that  a  new  obstacle  was  revealed. 
It  is  stated,  in  the  reply  of  Bishop  White  to 
the  inquiry  made  by  Parker,  in  these  words: 

"I  will  be  very  explicit  with  you  on  the  ques- 
tions you  put  in  regard  to  a  union  with  Bishop 
Seabury,  and  the  consecration  of  Dr.  Griffith.  On 
the  one  hand,  considering  it  was  presumed  that  a 
third  was  to  go  over  to  England;  —  that  the  insti- 
tutions of  the  Church  in  that  country  require  three 
to  join  in  the  Consecration; — and  that  the  polit- 
ical situation  of  the  English  prelates  prevents 
their  official  knowledge  of  Dr.  Seabury  as  a 
Bishop,  I  am  apprehensive  it  may  seem  a  breach 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    203 

of  faith  towards  them,  if  not  intended  deception 
in  us,  were  we  to  consecrate  without  the  usual 
number  of  three,  all  under  the  English  succession, 
although  it  would  not  be  inconsistent  with  this 
idea,  that  another  gentleman,  under  a  different 
succession  should  be  joined  with  us.  On  the 
other  hand,  I  am  most  sincerely  desirous  of  seeing 
our  Church  throughout  these  States  united  in  one 
Ecclesiastical  Legislature,  and  I  think  that  any 
difficulties  which  have  heretofore  seemed  in  the 
way  might  be  removed  by  mutual  forbearance.  If 
there  are  any  further  difficulties  than  those  I 
allude  to,  of  difference  in  opinion,  they  do  not 
exist  with  me;  and  I  shall  always  be  ready  to  do 
what  lies  in  my  power,  to  bring  all  to  an  agree- 
ment." 

It  was  thus,  and  in  these  words,  that  the 
ecclesiastical  statesman  of  Philadelphia  laid 
down  the  plan  on  which  alone  the  union  so 
greatly  desired  could  be  expected,  and  with 
prophetic  insight  indicated  the  measures 
which  would  eventually  result  in  the  accom- 
plishment of  this  desire. 

The  condition  of  Church  affairs  in  Ne\i 
Jersey,  in  Maryland,  and  in  Virginia,  so  far 
from    showing    signs    of    improvement,    grew 


204  The  General  Ecclesiastical 


from  bad  to  worse.  In  New  Jersey,  the  ex- 
cellent Dr.  Beach,  who  had  been  foremost 
in  seconding  the  efforts  of  White  for  the 
organization  of  the  American  Church,  was 
prevented  from  receiving  an  election  to  the 
Episcopal  office  by  the  cabals  of  Uzal  Ogden; 
who,  some  years  later,  when  his  ambitious 
schemes  for  his  own  election  were  defeated, 
took  refuge  in  the  Presbyterian  Communion, 
to  the  great  relief  of  the  New  Jersey  Church. 
In  Maryland,  Dr.  Smith,  though  failing  to 
secure  the  recommendation  of  the  General 
Convention  at  Wilmington,  still  insisted  on 
his  election,  and  for  a  time  effectually  pre- 
vented another  choice.  In  Virginia,  as  we 
have  seen,  the  indifference  of  the  clergy  and 
congregations  left  Dr.  Griffith  without  the 
means  for  the  voyage  to  England  and  proved 
conclusively  that  no  Bishop  at  all  was  wanted 
by  the  Church  at  large  in  that  State.  There 
came,  indeed,  from  across  the  ocean  an  ex- 
pression of  willingness  on  the  part  of  a  former 
clergyman  of  Pennsylvania  then  resident  in 
London,  to  undertake  for  a  time  the  Episco- 
pate of  New  Jersey,  Delaware,  or  Maryland, 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    205 

with  a  view  to  complete  the  Episcopal 
college  in  the  English  line.  But  this  propo- 
sition failed  to  commend  itself  to  either  the 
Bishop  of  New  York  or  to  Bishop  White, 
although  the  self-offered  candidate  was  ;i 
reputable  and  dignified  clergyman,  and  his 
proposition  was  undoubtedly  kindly  meant  to 
extricate  the  two  Bishops  from  an  evidently 
unpleasant  dilemma.  At  length  Dr.  Griffith 
formally  abandoned  the  purpose  he  had  enter- 
tained of  proceeding  to  England  for  consecra- 
tion, and  as  Bishops  White  and  Provoost  felt 
under  obligations  to  the  Archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury not  to  proceed  to  consecrate  until  the 
number  of  three  consecrations  in  the  English 
line  was  complete,  the  Bishop-elect  of  Vir- 
ginia placed  his  resignation  of  the  office  to 
which  he  had  been  elected  in  the  hands  of  the 
proper  authorities  in  Virginia.  Shortly  after- 
wards, when  at  the  house  of  Bishop  White  in 
Philadelphia,  in  attendance  at  the  first  Con- 
vention of  1789,  this  good  man  died,  to  the 
universal  regret  of  all  who  knew  him. 

Under    these    untoward    circumstances   the 
tireless  White  turned   his   attention   again   to 


206  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

Massachusetts.      Writing     to    Parker    he     in- 
quired   ''whether  our  brethren   of   Massachu- 
setts are  determined  still  to  keep  at  a  distance 
from    us,    or    whether   they   will    meet    us    in 
Convention     next    July?"     Assurances     were 
added   of  an   "accommodating  spirit"  on  the 
part   of   the   Churchmen  whom  White  repre- 
sented.     It  was  urged  that  "of  the  Southern 
States   it    is   evident   that   the    Church   is   not 
sufficiently  numerous,    in    some    of    them,    to 
encourage    their    choosing    a    Bishop;    while, 
in   others,   there   are   very  particular  circum- 
stances   preventing   such   a    measure."     Even 
if  Dr.    Griffith    were    enabled    to    proceed    to 
England  for  consecration,  "the  business  would 
be     imperfect,     unless    there    was    at    least    a 
fourth   ready   against   his   return."     The  "re- 
spectability of  the  Church  in  Massachusetts" 
warranted,   he   judged,   his  "looking  to  them 
in  this  business."     The  Bishop  adds,  "I  have 
formerly  expressed  to  you  another  reason  for 
my  wishing  you  with  us;   and  the  reason  still 
exists:  —  the  effecting  of  a  junction  with  our 
brethren  of  Connecticut." 

The  Bishop  proceeded  to  enforce  his  posi- 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.   207 

tion  by  adding:  —  "It  must  be  considered  by 
all  as  a  surprising  instance  of  negligence  in 
our  Church,  —  her  not  availing  herself  of  the 
present  opportunity  of  obtaining  the  entire 
and  independent  possession  of  that  Episco- 
pacy which  she  had  so  long  complained  of  the 
want  of."  Blaming  the  "brethren  of  Virginia" 
most  of  all,  he  claimed  that  when  their  indif- 
ference had  shown  that  there  was  no  depend- 
ence to  be  placed  on  them  "it  should  have 
been  taken  up  elsewhere." 

The  minds  of  all  Churchmen  were  now 
turning  towards  union,  save  perhaps  the 
Bishop  of  New  York,  who  wrote  Bishop 
White  as  late  as  February  24,  1890,  as 
follows: 

"An  invitation  to  the  Church  in  that  State 
(Connecticut)  to  meet  us  in  General  Convention, 
I  conceive  to  be  neither  necessary  nor  proper  — 
not  necessary,  because  I  am  informed  that  they 
have  already  appointed  two  persons  to  attend  the 
next  General  Convention  without  any  invitation  — 
not  proper,  because  it  is  publickly  known  that  they 
have  adopted  a  form  of  Church  government  which 
renders  them  inadmissable  as  members  of  the 
Convention  or  union." 


2o8  The  General  Ecclesiastical 


Parker  of  Boston,  in  his  reply  to  Bishop 
White,  promised  to  make  the  attempt  in  the 
coming  spring-  to  carry  out  the  wishes  of  his 
correspondent.  He  urged  "that  a  union 
might  take  place  even  if  the  Constitutions  of 
government  and  the  liturgy  varied  a  little  in 
the  different  states."  He  thought  agreement 
in  "the  general  principles  of  discipline  and 
worship"  enough  to  secure  unity.  He  called 
attention  to  the  removal  of  the  civil  disabili- 
ties of  the  Scottish  prelates,  which  had  indi- 
rectly grown  out  of  their  action  in  consecrat- 
ing Bishop  Seabury,  as  also  removing  "one 
bar  to  a  reconciliation  with  Bishop  Seabury." 
The  question  of  the  admission  of  the  laity  to 
a  share  in  Church  government  might  be  left 
to  the  respective  Churches.  "For  my  own 
part,"  he  writes,  "I  am  not  of  the  opinion 
that  the  Church  of  England  is  entirely  free 
from  lay  government,  and  I  am  still  more  of 
the  opinion  that  a  Church  existing  under  such 
Constitutions  of  civil  government  as  arc 
adopted  in  the  United  States,  especially  where 
it  has  no  funds  of  its  own  to  support  its 
officers,  can  never  flourish  without  yielding  to 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.   209 

the  laity,  who  hold  the  purse-strings,  a  share 
in  the  government."  Quoting  from  a  recent 
letter  of  Bishop  Seabury's,  he  concludes: 
"Here  certainly  appears  a  disposition  to 
unity;  where,  then,  is  the  impediment?" 

Ere  this  wise  and  temperate  letter  had  been 
received,  Bishop  White  had  written  to  Bishop 
Seabury  cordially  inviting  him,  with  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Connecticut  Church,  to  at- 
tend the  approaching  Convention  in  Philadel- 
phia, on  terms  honorable  to  both  parties. 
This  overture  was  met  in  the  spirit  which 
prompted  it,  and  the  Bishop  of  Connecticut, 
in  an  hurried  note  to  Mr.  Parker,  under  date 
of  April  10,  1789,  announces  his  determination 
to  "send  two  clergymen  to  the  Philadelphia 
Convention  to  see  whether  an  union  can  be 
effected." 

On  the  eve  of  this  meeting  of  the  first  Gen- 
eral Convention  of  1789,  Bishop  Seabury  ad- 
dressed a  long  and  carefully  prepared  com- 
munication to  Bishop  White.  This  letter  was 
written  after  consultation  with  the  clergy 
and  with  the  leading  laity  of  Connecticut. 
The    latter   had    been    convened  "to   provide 

14 


210  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

for  the  support  of  their  Bishop  and  to  con- 
sider of  the  practicability  of  instituting  an 
Episcopal  Academy."  The  clergy  met  in 
convocation  in  June,  and  the  great  questions 
now  occupying  the  minds  of  Churchmen 
throughout  the  land  were  considered  by  these 
two  representative  bodies  of  the  Connecticut 
Church.  The  laity  "declined  every  interfer- 
ence in  Church  government  or  reformation  of 
liturgies.  They  supposed  the  government 
of  the  Church  to  be  fixed,  and  that  they  had 
no  right  to  alter  it  by  introducing  a  new 
power  into  it.  They  hoped  the  old  liturgy 
would  be  retained;  and  these  matters,  they 
thought,  belonged  to  the  Bishops  and  clergy 
and  not  to  them.  They  therefore  could  send 
no  delegates,  though  they  wished  for  unity 
among  the  Churches,  and  for  uniformity  of 
worship;  but  could  not  see  why  these  great 
objects  could  not  be  better  secured  on  the 
old  ground  than  on  the  new." 

The  clergy  supposed  that  under  the  Consti- 
tution of  1785  any  representation  from  Con- 
necticut of  the  clerical  order  alone  would  be 
inadmissable.      In   this   judgment    they    were 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.   21 1 

undoubtedly  correct.  At  the  Wilmington 
Convention,  in  October,  1786,  Maryland,  rep- 
resented only  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  William  Smith, 
had  been  denied  representation  and  a  vote. 
The  Connecticut  clergy  further  asserted  that 
they  could  not  ''submit  to  offer  themselves  to 
make  part  of  any  meeting  where  the  authority 
of  their  Bishop  had  been  disputed  by  one  Bish- 
op"— Provoost  of  New  York  —  and  probably 
through  his  influence  "by  a  number  of  others 
who  were  to  compose  that  meeting."  They 
deemed  themselves  "excluded  till  this  point 
shall  have  been  settled  to  their  satisfaction." 
For  his  own  part.  Bishop  Seabury  wrote  that 
he  would  gladly  "contribute  to  the  union  and 
uniformity  of  all  our  Churches,"  but  while 
Bishop  Provoost  disputed  the  validity  of  his 
consecration  he  could  "take  no  step  toward 
the  accomplishment  of  so  great  and  desirable 
an  object."  This  point,  he  thought,  was  now 
in  such  a  state  that  it  must  be  settled  either 
by  the  approaching  Convention  or  "by  an 
appeal  to  the  good  sense  of  the  Christian 
world."  As  a  matter  in  which  he  was  person- 
ally concerned,  he  refused  to  discuss  it,  "hop- 


212  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

ing  that  the  candor  and  good  sense  of  the 
Convention  will  render  the  further  mention 
of  it  altogether  unnecessary." 

Bishop  Seabury  referred  in  passing  to  the 
implied  obligation  resting  on  Bishops  White 
and  Provoost  to  complete  the  succession  in 
the  English  line  ere  uniting  with  him  in  the 
consecration  of  a  fourth  Bishop  for  America. 
He  did  not  presume  to  dictate  in  this  matter, 
but  he  felt  that  he  could  not  but  wish  it  were 
otherwise.  He  left  it  to  Dr.  White's  "good 
sense,"  only  hoping  that  the  Bishop  and  the 
Convention  would  "deliberately  consider 
whether  the  implied  obligation  in  England 
and  the  wishes"  of  the  Middle  and  Southern 
Churches  should  "be  so  strong  that  they 
must  not  give  way  to  the  prospect  of  securing 
the  peace  and  unity  of  the  Church." 

In  this  carefully  considered  and  temperate 
communication,  evidently  intended  by  the 
writer  as  the  ultimatum  of  the  Church  at  the 
North,  Bishop  Seabury  proceeded  to  state 
the  objections  that  obtained  in  Connecticut 
against  the  proposed  Constitution  of  1785. 
The  inclusion  of  the  lay  delegates  in  Conven- 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    213 


tion  as  "part  of  a  judicial  consistory  for  the 
trial  and  deprivation  of  Clergymen,"  was 
regarded  at  the  North  as  "a  new  power, 
utterly  unknown  in  all  Episcopal  Churches, 
and  inconsistent  with  their  Constitution."  It 
was  felt  that  it  could  not  fail  to  be  "a  source 
of  oppression."  It  was  thought  that  it  would 
"operate  as  a  clog  on  the  due  exercise  of 
ecclesiastical  authority."  If  the  powers  with 
which  the  lay  delegates  were  invested  in  their 
proposed  Constitution  were,  as  was  claimed, 
"conformable  to  the  sentiments  of  some  of 
our  best  writers,"  the  Bishop  professed  him- 
self ignorant  of  the  fact  and  desired  to  know 
to  "what  writers"  he  was  to  look  for  "con- 
viction and  information  on  this  point."  With 
reference  to  the  accord  of  the  proposed  plan 
to  "the  principles  which  have  governed  in  the 
English  Church,"  he  had  "always  understood 
that  the  Liturgy,  and  Canons,  and  Articles, 
were  settled  and  agreed  upon  by  the  Convo- 
cation, and  were  then,  by  Act  of  Parliament, 
made  part  of  the  Constitution."  He  was  not 
"aware  that  the  laity  had  anything  further  to 
do  with  it." 


214  The  Ge?ieral  Ecclesiastical 

The  Bishop  corrected  the  misapprehension 
of  his  correspondent  respecting  the  course  of 
the  Massachusetts  and  Rhode  Island  clergy. 
In  neither  State  had  the  proposed  Constitution 
been  adopted.  The  proposed  liturgy  "with 
but  little  variation"  had  been  introduced  by  Mr. 
Parker  in  Boston,  and  possibly  by  the  other 
Congregation  there,  but  the  Bishop  was  not 
aware  that  this  "was  done  elsewhere."  "An 
attempt  to  introduce  it  into  Newport,"  the 
Bishop  judged,  had  "laid  the  foundation  for 
such  dissentions  in  that  congregation"  as 
would  "long  continue."  The  Proposed  Book 
was  also  reviewed  in  this  interesting  and  im- 
portant letter.  The  Bishop  deemed  "the 
mutilating  the  Psalms"  an  "unwarrantable 
liberty,  and  such  as  was  never  before  taken 
with  Holy  Scripture  by  any  Church."  It  des- 
troys," proceeds  the  Bishop,  "that  beautiful 
chain  of  prophecy  that  runs  through  them  and 
turns  their  application  from  Messiah  and  His 
Church  to  the  temporal  state  and  concerns  of 
individuals." 

"By  discarding  the  word  Absolution,  and 
making  no  mention  of  Regeneration  in   Bap- 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    215 

tism,"  it  seemed  to  the  Bishop  "to  give  up 
those  points  and  to  open  the  door  to  error  and 
delusion."  "The  excluding  of  the  Nicene 
and  Athanasian  Creeds,"  he  proceeded,  had 
"alarmed  the  steady  friends  of  our  Church 
lest  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  Divinity  should 
go  out  with  it." 

"If  the  doctrine  of  these  Creeds  be  offensive, 
we  are  sorry  for  it,  and  shall  hold  ourselves  so 
much  the  more  bound  to  retain  them.  If  what 
are  called  the  damnatory  clauses  in  the  latter  be 
the  objection,  cannot  these  clauses  be  supported 
by  Scripture?  Whether  they  can  or  cannot,  why 
not  discard  those  clauses  and  retain  the  doctrinal 
part  of  the  Creed?  The  leaving  out  the  descent 
into  hell  from  the  Apostles'  Creed  seems  to  be  of 
dangerous  consequence.  Have  we  a  right  to  alter 
the  analogy  of  faith  handed  down  to  us  by  the 
Holy  Catholic  Church.  And  if  we  do  alter  it, 
how  will  it  appear  that  we  are  the  same  Church 
which  subsisted  in  primitive  times.  *  *  The 
Apostles'  Creed  seems  to  have  been  the  Creed  of 
the  Western  Church;  the  Nicene  of  the  Eastern; 
and  the  Athanasian,  to  be  designed  to  ascertain 
the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  against  all 
opposers.      And  it  has  always  appeared  to  me  that 


216  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

the  design  of  the  Church  of  England  in  retaining 
the  three  Creeds  was  to  show  that  she  did  retain 
the  analogy  of  the  Catholic  faith,  in  common  with 
the  Eastern  and  Western  Church,  and  in  opposi- 
tion to  those  who  denied  the  Trinity  of  persons  in 
the  Unity  of  the  Divine  essence.  Why  any  de- 
parture should  be  made  from  this  good  and  pious 
example,  I  am  yet  to  find." 

"Our  regard  for  primitive  practice  makes  us 
exceedingly  grieved  that  you  have  not  absolutely 
retained  the  sign  of  the  Cross  in  Baptism.  When 
I  consider  the  practice  of  the  ancient  Church  be- 
fore Popery  had  a  being,  I  cannot  think  the 
Church  of  England  justifiable  in  giving  up  the 
sign  of  the  Cross  where  it  was  retained  by  the 
first  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  the  VI.  Her  mo- 
tive may  have  been  good,  but  good  motives  will 
not  justify  wrong  actions.  The  concessions  she 
has  made  in  giving  up  several  primitive,  and  I 
suppose,  apostolical  usages,  to  gratify  the  humours 
of  fault-finding  men,  shows  the  inefficacy  of  such 
conduct.  She  has  learned  wisdom  from  her  ex- 
periences. Why  should  not  we  also  take  a  lesson 
in  her  school?  If  the  humour  be  pursued  of  giv- 
ing up  points  on  every  demand,  in  fifty  years  we 
shall  scarce  have  the  name  of  Christianity  left. 
For  God's  sake,  my  dear  sir,  let  us  remember  that 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    217 

it  is  the  particular  business  of  the  Bishops  of 
Christ's  Church  to  preserve  it  pure  and  undefiled, 
in  faith  and  practice,  according  to  the  model  left 
by  apostolic  practice.  And  may  God  give  you 
grace  and  courage  to  act  accordingly." 

Excepting  to  the  burial  office,  where  "the 
hope  of  a  future  resurrection  to  eternal  life  is 
too  faintly  expressed,"  and  the  ''acknowl- 
edgement of  an  intermediate  state  between 
death  and  the  resurrection,  seems  to  be  entire- 
ly thrown  out,"  and  noticing  that  ''the  Arti- 
cles seem  to  be  altered  to  little  purpose," 
there  follows  the  Bishop's  criticism  on  the  Eu- 
charistic  office: — 

"That  the  most  exceptionable  part  of  the  En- 
glish book  is  the  Communion  office,  may  be 
proved  by  a  number  of  very  respectable  names 
among  her  clergy.  The  grand  fault  in  that  office 
is  the  deficiency  of  a  more  formal  oblation  of  the 
elements,  and  of  the  invocation  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
to  sanctify  and  bless  them.  The  consecration  is 
made  to  consist  merely  in  the  Priest's  laying  his 
hands  on  the  elements  and  pronouncing,  '  This  is 
My  Body,'  etc.,  which  words  are  not  consecration 
at  all,  nor  were  they  addressed  by  Christ  to  the 
Father,    but    were    declarative    to    the    Apostles. 


2 1 8  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

This  is  so  exactly  symbolizing  with  the  Church  of 
Rome  in  an   error  —  an  error,  too,  on  which  the 
absurdity   of    Transubstantiation    is    built,  —  that 
nothing   but   having    fallen    into    the    same    error 
themselves,  could  have  prevented  the  enemies  of 
the   Church  from   casting  it  in    her    teeth.      The 
efficacy  of  Baptism,  of  Confirmation,   of  Orders, 
is  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  His  energy  is 
implored  for   that  purpose;  and   why   He   should 
not  be  invoked  in  the  consecration  of  the  Euchar- 
ist, especially  as  all  the  old  liturgies  are  full  to  the 
point,  I  cannot  conceive.      It    is   much  easier  to 
account  for  the  alterations  of  the  first  liturgy  of 
Edward   the   VI.  than   to   justify  them,  and   as   I 
have  been  told,  there  is  a  vote  on  the  minutes  of 
your    Convention,  amio  1786,   I   believe,   for  the 
revision  of  this  matter.     I  hope  it  will  be  taken  up, 
and  that  God  will  raise  up  some  able  and  worthy 
advocate   for   this    primitive    practice,  and    make 
you  and  the  Convention  the  instruments  of  restor- 
ing it  to  the  Church  in  America.      It   would   do 
you  more   honour   in   the   world,    and    contribute 
more  to  the  union  of  the  Churches,  than  any  other 
alterations  you  can  make,  and  would  restore  the 
Holy  Eucharist  to  its  ancient  dignity  and  efficacy." 

Renewing  his  former  proposition  of  a  meet- 
ing of  the  three  Bishops  with  proctors  of  their 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    219 

respective  clergy,  in  which  all  would  meet 
"on  equal  ground"  and  "everything  might 
be  settled  to  mutual  satisfaction"  "without  the 
preposterous  method  of  ascertaining  doctrines, 
etc.,  etc.,  by  a  majority  of  votes,"  the 
Bishop  in  conclusion  expressed  the  hope 
"that  all  obstructions  may  be  removed,"  and 
besought  "Almighty  God  to  direct  us  in  the 
great  work  of  establishing  and  building  up 
His  Church  in  peace  and  unity,  truth  and 
charity,  and  purity."  In  a  postscript  he 
added: — 

"That  the  assent  of  the  laity  should  be  given 
to  the  laws  which  affect  them  equally  with  the 
clergy,  I  think  is  right,  and  I  believe,  will  be  dis- 
puted nowhere,  and  the  rights  of  the  laity  we  have 
no  disposition  to  invade." 

A  similar  letter  was  addressed  by  Bishop 
Seabury  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Smith.  It  expressed 
the  Bishop's  conviction  of  the  necessity  of  the 
union  of  all  the  Churches  and  the  disadvan- 
tages of  the  present  disunion,  and  added:  "I 
have,  however,  the  strongest  hope  that  all 
difficulties  will  be  removed  by  your  Conven- 
tion,—  that  the  Connecticut  Episcopacy  will 


220  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

be  explicitly  acknowledged,  and  that  Church 
enabled  to  join  in  union  with  you  without 
giving  up  her  own  independency." 

At  the  meeting  of  the  General  Convention 
of  the  Church  in  the  Middle  and  Southern 
States  at  Philadelphia,  July,  1789,  a  letter 
from  the  Rev.  Samuel  Parker  of  Boston,  en- 
closing a  formal  request  from  the  clergy  of 
Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire  to  the 
Bishops  of  Pennsylvania  and  New  York  to 
unite  with  the  Bishop  of  Connecticut  in  the 
consecration  of  the  Rev.  Edward  Bass  of 
Newburyport,  their  Bishop-elect,  demanded 
immediate  attention.  This  measure,  as  we 
are  informed  by  Bishop  White,  was  set  on 
foot  by  the  energetic  Parker,  and,  as  it  ap- 
pears in  the  sequel,  was  not  so  much  intend- 
ed to  bring  about  Mr.  Bass'  consecration  as,  by 
the  presentation  of  a  case  in  point,  to  effect 
that  union  which  was  now  the  desire  of  the 
great  body  of  Churchmen  throughout  the 
land.  The  prospect  that  this  election  of  Mr. 
Bass  might  bring  about  this  result  had  not 
escaped  the  vigilant  eyes  of  Bishop  Provoost 
of  New  York;  and  the  attempt  was  made  by 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    221 

perhaps  the  most  prominent  layman  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, Dudley  Atkins  Tyng,  a  parishioner 
of  Mr.  Bass',  to  interest  the  various  vestries 
of  Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire  in 
opposition  to  Mr.  Bass'  consecration.  It 
required  the  most  determined  and  painstaking 
effort  on  the  part  of  Parker  to  counteract  this 
opposition  and  to  prevent  its  success.  It 
was  by  his  judicious  measures  and  explana- 
tions that  the  growing  discontent  was  allayed; 
and  on  the  third  day  of  the  session  of  General 
Convention  in  Philadelphia,  there  was  laid 
before  the  body  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  White,  the 
formal  action  of  the  Massachusetts  and  New 
Hampshire  clergy. 

The  Act  of  the  clergy  of  Massachusetts 
and  New  Hampshire,  recommending  the  Rev. 
Edward  Bass  for  consecration,  began  with 
these  words: — 

"The  good  Providence  of  Almighty  God,  the 
fountain  of  all  goodness,  having  lately  blessed  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America  by  supplying  it  with  a  complete  and 
entire  ministry,  and  affording  to  many  of  her 
communion  the  benefit  of  the  labors,  advice,  and 
government  of  the  successors  of  the  Apostles : 


222  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

"We  Presbyters  of  said  Church  in  the  States  of 
Massachusetts   and  New   Hampshire,   deeply    im- 
pressed   with    the    most    lively    gratitude    to     the 
Supreme  Governor  of  the  universe  for  His  good- 
ness in  this  respect;  and  with  the  most  ardent  love 
to  His  Church  and  concern  for  the  interest  of  her 
sons,    that    they    may   enjoy  all    the    means    that 
Christ  the  great  Shepherd   and   Bishop    of    souls 
has  instituted  for  leading  His  followers  into   the 
ways  of   truth   and   holiness,   and   preserving  His 
Church  in  the  unity  of  the  spirit  and  in  the  bond  of 
peace,   to  the  end  that  the  people  committed  to 
our  respective  charges  may  enjoy  the  benefit  and 
advantage  of  those  offices,  the  administration  of 
which  belongs  to  the  highest  Order  of  the  Minis- 
try, and  to  encourage  and  promote,  as  far  as  in 
us  lies,  a  union  of  the  whole  Episcopal  Church  in 
these   States,    and    to    perfect    and    compact   this 
mystical   body   of    Christ  —  do  hereby   nominate, 
elect  and  appoint  the  Rev.  Edward  Bass,  a  Pres- 
byter of  said  Church  and  rector  of  St.  Paul's  in 
Newburyport,  to  be  our  Bishop;  and  we  do  prom- 
ise and  engage  to  receive  him  as  such,  when  ca- 
nonically  consecrated  and  invested  with  the  Apos- 
tolic office  and  powers  by  the  Right  Reverend  the 
Bishops  hereafter  named,   and   to  render  him  all 
that  canonical  obedience  and   submission  which, 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    223 

by  the  laws  of  Christ  and  the  Constitution  of  our 
Church,  is  due  to  so  important  an  office." 

This  wordy  paragraph  is  followed  by  the 
request  addressed  to  the  Bishops  of  Connecti- 
cut, New  York,  and  Pennsylvania,  "praying 
their  united  assistance  in  consecrating  our 
said  Brother,  and  canonically  investing  him 
with  the  Apostolic  office  and  powers." 

Parker  was  further  made  the  agent  of  the 
five  clergymen,  of  which  number  he  was  one, 
who  participated  in  this  election,  "to  appear 
at  any  Convocation  to  be  holden  at  Pennsyl- 
vania or  New  York,  and  to  treat  upon  any 
measures  that  may  tend  to  promote  an  union 
of  the  Episcopal  Church  throughout  the 
United  States  of  America,  or  that  may  prove 
advantageous  to  the  interests  of  the  said 
Church." 

In  this  connection,  as  appears  from  the 
Journal,  a  letter  was  read  from  the  Right 
Reverend  Dr.  Seabury,  Bishop  of  the  Church 
in  Connecticut,  to  Bishop  White,  and  one 
from  the  same  gentleman  to  the  Reverend 
Dr.   Smith. 

On  reading  these  letters,  as  it  appeared  that 


224  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

the  Bishop  of  Connecticut  "lay  under  some 
misapprehension  concerning  an  entry  in  the 
minutes  of  a  former  Convention,  it  was  at 
once  resolved  unanimously,  that  it  is  the 
opinion  of  this  Convention  that  the  consecra- 
tion of  the  Right  Reverend  Dr.  Seabury  to 
the  Episcopal  office,  is  valid." 

The  request  of  the  clergy  of  Massachusetts 
and  New  Hampshire  was  now  considered  in 
the  committee  of  the  whole  from  day  to  day 
until  Wednesday,  August  30,  when  five  reso- 
lutions reported  in  committee,  adopted,  and 
afterwards  unanimously  agreed  to  by  the  Con- 
vention, affirmed  the  existence  in  the  United 
States  of  America  of  "a  complete  order  of 
bishops  as  well  under  the  English  as  the  Scot- 
tish line  of  Episcopacy,"  specifying  these  prel- 
ates as  the  Bishop  of  Pennsylvania,  the  Bishop 
of  New  York,  and  the  Bishop  of  Connecticut. 

It  was  further  affirmed  that  these  three 
Bishops  were  fully  competent  to  every  proper 
act  and  duty  of  the  Episcopal  office  and 
character  in  the  United  States,  "such  as  the 
consecration  of  other  Bishops  and  the  ordering 
of  Priests  and  Deacons"  and  "the  government 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.   225 

of  the  Church  according  to  such  canons,  rules, 
and  institutions  as  now  are  or  hereafter  may 
be  duly  made  and  ordained  by  the  Church 
in  that  case."  In  conclusion  it  was  urged 
that  Christian  charity,  as  well  as  duty, 
necessity  and  expediency,  required  the 
Churches  represented  in  this  Convention  to 
contribute  in  every  manner  in  their  power  to- 
wards supplying  the  wants,  and  granting  the  re- 
quests, of  their  sister  Churches  in  these  States. 

It  was  determined  by  the  Convention  to  ad- 
dress the  English  Bishops  with  a  view  to 
securing  relief  for  the  Bishops  of  Pennsylvania 
and  New  York  from  the  obligation  they 
felt  themselves  under  to  await  the  consecra- 
tion of  a  third  Bishop  in  the  English  line  ere 
proceeding  to  the  consecration  of  a  Bishop  in 
America. 

This  address  to  the  English  prelates  recited 
in  full  the  action  of  the  Massachusetts  and 
New  Hampshire  clergy,  the  resolutions  adopt- 
ed by  the  Convention,  adding  extracts  of  a  let- 
ter from  Parker,  in  which  he  said:  4 '  The  clergy 
of  this  state  are  very  desirous  of  seeing  an  union 
of  the  whole  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 

15 


226  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

States  take  place,  and  it  will  remain  with  our 
brethren  at  the  southward  to  say  whether 
this  shall  be  the  case  or  not  —  whether  we 
shall  be  an  united  or  divided  Church;" — and 
portions  of  the  letters  of  Seabury  to  which  we 
have  already  made  reference.  Bishop  White 
accompanied^he  address  with  a  personal  letter 
to  the  Archbishop  urging  a  favorable  consid- 
eration of  the  prayer  of  the  Convention,  and 
adding  that  "all  my  endeavors  have  tended 
to  the  union  with  our  Eastern  brethren,  still  in 
consistency  with  the  completing  of  the  succes- 
sion from  England." 

Letters  from  Dr.  Smith,  and  from  the  Com- 
mittees of  the  Convention,  as  well  as  from 
Bishop  White  individually,  pressed  strongly 
upon  the  Bishop  of  Connecticut  the  wish  of  all 
that  he  should  attend  the  adjourned  meeting  in 
October.  On  receipt  of  the  official  invitation, 
Seabury,  in  a  letter  to  White,  at  once  an- 
nounced his  determination  to  accept.  Pro- 
voost,  who  had  not  been  present  at  the  meet- 
ing in  July  and  August,  addressing  his  brother 
of  Pennsylvania  on  the  same  day,  expressed  his 
unabated   opposition   to  the   proposed   union, 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.   227 

in  favor  of  which  his  own  delegates  had  been 
unanimous. 

The  consideration  of  the  request  of  the 
clergy  of  Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire 
for  the  consecration  of  Mr.  Bass  was  not  the 
only  subject  that  engrossed  the  attention  of 
the  first  session  of  the  Convention  of  1789. 
Even  before  the  "Act  of  the  clergy  of  Mas- 
sachusetts and  New  Hampshire"  had  been 
brought  formally  to  the  notice  of  the  meeting, 
a  "Committee  consisting  of  one  deputy  from 
each  State,"  had  been  appointed  to  take  into 
consideration  the  proposed  constitution  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and  to  recom- 
mend such  alterations,  additions,  and  amend- 
ments as  they  shall  think  necessary  and 
proper.*  After  two  days'  deliberation,  this 
committee,  through  the  Rev.  Dr.  William 
Smith,  "reported  a  Constitution."  t  After  a 
first  and  second  reading,  the  proposed  Consti- 
tution was  "debated  by  paragraphs,"  and  it 
was  then 

"Resolved,  that  the  first,  second,  fourth,  fifth, 

*  Perry's  Reprint  of  the  Early  Journals,  I.,  pp.  69,  70. 

I  Ibid.,  p.  72. 


228  The  General  Ecclesiastical 


sixth,  seventh  and  eighth  articles  be  adopted,  and 
stand  in  this  order:  i,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7;  that  they 
be  a  rule  of  conduct  for  this  convention;  and  that 
the  remaining  articles  be  postponed  for  the  future 
consideration  of  this  convention." 

At  the  close  of  a  week,  during  which  meas- 
ures had  been  taken  providing  for  the  healing 
of  differences  and  the  bringing  together  of 
long-parted  men,  "the  Convention  took  into 
consideration  the  two  Articles  of  the  Consti- 
tution which  had  been  postponed,  and  which 
they  amended  and  agreed  to."  The  Constitu- 
tion was  then  ordered  to  be  engrossed,  and 
on  the  following  day  it  was  signed  by  Bishop 
White,  and  the  deputies,  both  clerical  and  lay, 
from  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania, 
Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia,  and  South  Car- 
olina.    This  constitution  was  as  follows: — 

A     GENERAL     CONSTITUTION     OF     THE     PROTESTANT 

EPISCOPAL   CHURCH    IN    THE    UNITED    STATES 

OF    AMERICA. 

Article  i.  There  shall  be  a  General  Conven- 
tion of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America  on  the  first  Tuesday  of 
August,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord,  1792,  and  on  the 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    229 

first  Tuesday  of  August  in  every  third  year  after- 
wards, in  such  place  as  shall  be  determined  by  the 
Convention;  and  special  meetings  may  be  called 
at  other  times,  in  the  manner  hereafter  to  be  pro- 
vided for;  and  this  Church,  in  a  majority  of  States 
which  shall  have  adopted  this  Constitution,  shall 
be  represented,  before  they  shall  proceed  to  busi- 
ness, except  that  the  representation  from  two 
States  shall  be  sufficient  to  adjourn;  and  in  all 
business  of  the  Convention  freedom  of  debate 
shall  be  allowed. 

Art.  2.  The  Church  in  each  State  shall  be  en- 
titled to  a  representation  of  both  the  Clergy  and  the 
Laity,  which  representation  shall  consist  of  one  or 
more  Deputies,  not  exceeding  four  of  each  Order, 
chosen  by  the  Convention  of  the  State;  and  in  all 
questions,  when  required  by  the  Clerical  or  Lay 
representation  from  any  State,  each  Order  shall 
have  one  vote;  and  the  majority  of  suffrages  by 
States  shall  be  conclusive  in  each  Order,  provided 
such  majority  comprehend  a  majority  of  the  States 
represented  in  that  Order.  The  concurrence  of 
both  Orders  shall  be  necessary  to  constitute  a  vote 
of  the  Convention.  If  the  Convention  of  any 
State  should  neglect  or  decline  to  appoint  Clerical 
Deputies,  or  if  they  should  neglect  or  decline  to 
appoint  Lay  Deputies,  or  if  any  of  those  of  either 


230  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

Order  appointed  should  neglect  to  attend,  or  be 
prevented  by  sickness  or  any  other  accident,  such 
State  shall  nevertheless  be  considered  as  duly 
represented  by  such  Deputy  or  Deputies  as  may 
attend,  whether  Lay  or  Clerical.  And  if,  through 
the  neglect  of  the  Convention  of  any  of  the 
Churches  which  shall  have  adopted,  or  may  here- 
after adopt  this  Constitution,  no  Deputies,  either 
Lay  or  Clerical,  should  attend  at  any  General 
Convention,  the  Church  in  such  State  shall  never- 
theless be  bound  by  the  acts  of  such  Convention. 

Art.  3.  The  Bishops  of  this  Church,  when 
there  shall  be  three  or  more,  shall,  whenever  Gen- 
eral Conventions  are  held,  form  a  House  of  revis- 
ion; and  when  any  proposed  act  shall  have  passed 
in  the  General  Convention,  the  same  shall  be 
transmitted  to  the  House  of  revision  for  their  con- 
currence. And  if  the  same  shall  be  sent  back  to 
the  Convention,  with  the  negative  or  non-concur- 
rence of  the  House  of  revision,  it  shall  be  again 
considered  in  the  General  Convention,  and  if  the 
Convention  shall  adhere  to  the  said  act,  by  a 
majority  of  three-fifths  of  their  body,  it  shall  be- 
come a  law  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  notwith- 
standing the  non-concurrence  of  the  House  of 
revision;  and  all  acts  of  the  Convention  shall  be 
authenticated  by  both  Houses.     And  in  all  cases, 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    231 

the  House  of  Bishops  shall  signify  to  the  Conven- 
tion their  approbation  or  disapprobation,  the 
latter  with  their  reasons  in  writing,  within  two 
days  after  the  proposed  act  shall  have  been  re- 
ported to  them  for  concurrence;  and  in  failure 
thereof,  it  shall  have  the  operation  of  a  law.  But 
until  there  shall  be  three  or  more  Bishops,  as 
aforesaid,  any  Bishop  attending  a  General  Con- 
vention shall  be  a  member  ex  officio,  and  shall 
vote  with  the  Clerical  Deputies  of  the  State  to 
which  he  belongs.  And  a  Bishop  shall  then  pre- 
side. 

Art.  4.  The  Bishop  or  Bishops  in  every  State 
shall  be  chosen  agreeably  to  such  rules,  as  shall  be 
fixed  by  the  Convention  of  that  State:  And  every 
Bishop  of  this  Church  shall  confine  the  exercise  of 
his  Episcopal  Office  to  his  proper  Diocese  or  Dis- 
trict, unless  requested  to  ordain,  or  confirm,  or 
perform  any  other  act  of  the  Episcopal  Office,  by 
any  Church  destitute  of  a  Bishop. 

Art.  5.  A  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  any 
of  the  United  States,  not  now  represented,  may, 
at  any  time  hereafter,  be  admitted,  on  acceding  to 
this  Constitution. 

Art.  6.  In  every  State,  the  mode  of  trying 
Clergymen  shall  be  instituted  by  the  Convention 
of  the  Church  therein.     At  every  trial  of  a  Bishop, 


232  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

there  shall  be  one  or  more  of  the  Episcopal  Order 
present;  and  none  but  a  Bishop  shall  pronounce 
sentence  of  deposition  or  degradation  from  the 
Ministry  on  any  Clergyman,  whether  Bishop,  or 
Presbyter,  or  Deacon. 

Art.  7.  No  person  shall  be  admitted  to  Holy 
Orders,  until  he  shall  have  been  examined  by  the 
Bishop,  and  by  two  Presbyters,  and  shall  have  ex- 
hibited such  testimonials  and  other  requisites,  as 
the  Canons,  in  that  case  provided,  may  direct. 
Nor  shall  any  person  be  ordained  until  he  shall 
have  subscribed  the  following  declaration: — 

I  do  believe  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  to  be  the  Word  of  God,  and  to  contain  all  things 
necessary  to  salvation:  and  I  do  solemnly  engage  to  con- 
form to  the  Doctrines  and  Worship  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  in  these  United  States. 

No  person  ordained  by  a  foreign  Bishop  shall 
be  permitted  to  officiate  as  a  Minister  of  this 
Church,  until  he  shall  have  complied  with  the 
Canon  or  Canons  in  that  case  provided,  and  have 
also  subscribed  the  aforesaid  Declaration. 

Art.  8.  A  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  Adminis- 
tration of  the  Sacraments,  and  other  Rites  and 
Ceremonies  of  the  Church,  Articles  of  Religion, 
and  a  Form  and  Manner  of  making,  ordaining  and 
consecrating  Bishops,  Priests  and  Deacons,  when 


Constitution  of  the  American  CJmrcJi.   233 

established  by  this  or  a  future  General  Conven- 
tion, shall  be  used  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  these  States  which  shall  have  adopted 
this  Constitution. 

Art.  9.  This  Constitution  shall  be  unalterable, 
unless  in  General  Convention,  by  the  Church  in 
a  majority  of  the  States,  which  may  have  adopted 
the  same;  and  all  alterations  shall  be  first  pro- 
posed in  one  General  Convention,  and  made 
known  to  the  several  State  Conventions,  before 
they  shall  be  finally  agreed  to  or  ratified  in  the 
ensuing  General  Convention. 

In  General  Convention,  in  Christ  Church,  Phil- 
adelphia, August  the  8th,  One  thousand  seven 
hundred  and  eighty-nine. 

At  the  adjourned  Convention,  which  met 
on  the  29th  of  September,  and  continued  in 
session  until  the  16th  of  October,  Bishop  Sea- 
bury,  with  clerical  deputies  representing 
Connecticut,  Massachusetts,  and  New  Hamp- 
shire, were  in  attendance.  The  Convention 
of  July  and  August  had  appointed  a  committee 
to  notify  the  Bishop  of  Connecticut,  and  the 
"Eastern  and  other  Churches  not  included  in 
this  union,"  of  the  time  and  place  of  the  ad- 
journed session,  and  to  "request  their  atten- 


234  Tke  General  Ecclesiastical 

dance  at  the  same,  for  the  good  purposes  of 
union  and  general  government."  This  com- 
mittee, consisting  of  the  Bishop  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, the  Rev.  Drs.  William  Smith  and 
Samuel  Magaw,  and  Messrs.  Francis  Hopkin- 
son  and  Tench  Coxe,  in  their  letter  of  invita- 
tion, assured  Bishop  Seabury  "that  nothing 
hath  been  left  unattempted"  which  was 
deemed  "conducive,  either  towards  the  basis 
or  superstructure  of  an  union,  so  seemly  and 
needful  in  itself,  and  so  ardently  desired  by 
all."     The  letter  proceeded  as  follows: — 

By  the  second  Article  of  our  printed  Constitution 
(as  now  amended),  you  will  observe  that  your  first 
and  chief  difficulty  respecting  Lay  representation  is 
wholly  removed,  upon  the  good  and  wise  princi- 
ples admitted  by  you  as  well  as  by  us,  viz. :  "That 
there  may  be  a  strong  and  efficacious  union  be- 
tween Churches,  where  the  usages  are  in  some  res- 
pects different. "  It  was  long  so  in  the  different 
dioceses  in  England. 

By  the  Article  of  our  Constitution  above  men- 
tioned, the  admission  of  yours  and  the  other  East- 
ern Churches  is  provided  for  upon  your  own  prin- 
ciples of  representatio?i;   while    our    Churches  are 


Constitution  of  the  A  merican  Church.   235 

not  required  to  make  any  sacrifice  of  theirs;  it  be- 
ing declared — 

That  the  Church  in  each  State  shall  be  entitled 
to  a  representation  either  of  Clergy  or  Laity  or  of 
both.  And  in  case  the  Convention  [or  Church] 
of  any  State  should  neglect  or  decline  to  appoint 
their  deputies,  of  either  order;  or  if  it  should  be 
their  rule  to  appoint  only  out  of  one  order;  or  if 
any  of  those  appointed  should  neglect  to  attend, 
or  be  prevented  by  sickness,  or  any  other  accident, 
the  Church  in  such  State,  (district  or  diocese) 
shall,  nevertheless,  be  considered  as  duly  repre- 
sented by  such  deputy  or  deputies  as  may  attend 
of  either  order. 

Here,  then,  every  case  is  intended  to  be  provid- 
ed for,  and  experience  will  either  demonstrate  that 
an  efficacious  union  may  be  had  upon  these  princi- 
ples; or  mutual  good-will,  and  a  further  reciproca- 
tion of  sentiments  will  eventually  lead  to  a  more 
perfect  uniformity  of  discipline  as  well  as  of 
doctrine. 

(The  representation  in  those  States  where  the 
Church  appoints  clerical  deputies  only,  or  chooses 
to  be  wholly  represented  by  its  bishop,  will  be 
considered  as  complete;  and  as  it  cannot  be  sup- 
posed that  the  clergy  will  ever  neglect  to  avail 
themselves  of  their  voice  and  negative,  in  every 


236  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

ecclesiastical  decision,  so  neither  can  the  laity 
complain  in  those  States  where  they  claim  no 
representation,  and  still  less  where  they  are  de- 
clared to  have  a  voice,  and  claim  a  representation, 
but  neglect  to  avail  themselves  of  their  claim; 
which  latter  is  too  likely  to  be  the  case  in  some  of 
the  States  within  our  present  union,  where  it  is 
difficult  to  procure  any  lay  representation,  although 
earnestly  solicited  by  some  of  the  clergy,  who  are 
fully  sensible  of  the  advantages  derived  to  our 
former  conventions,  from  the  wise  and  temperate 
counsels,  and  the  respectable  countenance  and 
assistance  of  our  lay-members.)* 

It  was  with  these  views  and  this  under- 
standing that  the  Churches  of  New  England 
were  represented  at  the  adjourned  Convention 
of  1789.  The  Convention  respectfully  list- 
ened to  the  reading  of  Bishop  Seabury's  "Let- 
ters of  Consecration  to  the  holy  office  of  a 
Bishop  in  this  Church,  "t  and  immediately  in 
a  committee  of  the  whole  considered  the  sub- 


*  From  the  original  draft  in  Perry's  Historical  Notes  and 
Documents,  pp.  405,  406. 

"I"  This  is  the  language  of  the  official  journal  of  the  Con- 
vention.—  Vide.  Perry's  Reprint  of  the  Early  Journals,  Vol. 
1.,  P-93- 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    237 


ject  of  the  proposed  union.  The  Bishop  of 
Connecticut  and  the  deputies  from  New  En- 
gland stipulated  that  the  third  Article  of  the 
Constitution  should  be  "so  modified  as  to  de- 
clare explicitly  the  right  of  the  Bishops  when 
sitting  as  a  separate  House,  to  originate  and 
propose  acts  for  the  concurrence  of  the  other 
House  of  Convention,  and  to  negative  such 
acts  proposed  by  the  other  House  as  they  may 
disapprove."  The  committee  of  conference 
with  the  Eastern  deputies,  under  the  chair- 
manship of  Dr.  William  Smith,  reported  that 
the  proposed  alteration  was  "desirable  in 
itself,"  and  after  consideration  the  third  Ar- 
ticle was  modified  as  follows : 

Art.  3.  The  Bishops  of  this  Church,  when 
there  shall  be  three  or  more,  shall,  whenever  Gen- 
eral Conventions  are  held,  form  a  separate  House, 
with  a  right  to  originate  and  propose  acts  for  the 
concurrence  of  the  House  of  Deputies,  composed 
of  Clergy  and  Laity;  and  when  any  proposed  act 
shall  have  passed  the  House  of  Deputies,  the  same 
shall  be  transmitted  to  the  House  of  Bishops,  who 
shall  have  a  negative  thereupon,  unless  adhered 
to  by  four-fifths  of  the  other  House;  and  all  acts 


238  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

of  the  Convention  shall  be  authenticated  by  both 
Houses.  And,  in  all  cases,  the  House  of  Bishops 
shall  signify  to  the  Convention  their  approbation 
or  disapprobation,  the  latter,  with  their  reasons  in 
writing,  within  three  days  after  the  proposed  act 
shall  have  been  reported  to  them  for  concurrence; 
and  in  failure  thereof,  it  shall  have  the  operation 
of  a  law.  But  until  there  shall  be  three  or  more 
Bishops  as  aforesaid,  any  Bishop  attending  a  Gen- 
eral Convention,  shall  be  a  member  ex  officio,  and 
shall  vote  with  the  Clerical  Deputies  of  the  Dio- 
cese to  which  he  belongs;  and  a  Bishop  shall  then 
preside. 

It  was  further  "Resolved,  that  it  be  made 
known  to  the  several  State  conventions,  that  it 
is  proposed  to  consider  and  determine,  in  the 
next  general  convention,  on  the  propriety  of 
investing  the  house  of  bishops  with  a  full  nega- 
tive upon  the  proceedings  of  the  other  house." 

As  soon  as  this  was  done  the  "General  Con- 
stitution of  the  Church,  as  now  altered  and 
amended,"  was  "laid  before  the  Right  Rev. 
Dr.  Seabury,  and  the  Deputies  from  the 
Churches  in  the  Eastern  States,  for  their  ap- 
probation and  assent."* 

*  Perry's  Historical  Notes  and  Documents,  p.  415. 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    239 

This  assent  was  cordially  given.  The 
House  of  Bishops  was  at  once  constituted; 
Bishop  Seabury,  by  virtue  of  his  seniority  of 
consecration,  being  the  first  "Presiding  Bish- 
op" thereof  and  of  the  American  Church. 

Bishop  White  informs  us:  "that  from  the 
sentiments  expressed  in  the  debate,  there  is 
reason  to  believe  that  the  full  negative  would 
have  been  allowed,  had  not  Mr.  Andrews,  * 
from  Virginia,  very  seriously  and  doubtless 
very  sincerely,  expressed  his  apprehension, 
that  it  was  so  far  beyond  what  was  expected 
by  the  Church  in  his  State,  as  would  cause  the 
measure  to  be  there  disowned,  "t  In  the  com- 
promise which  was  adopted,  Bishop  Seabury 
and  the  deputies  from  New  England  "acqui- 
esced but  reluctantly. "  The  truth  was,  as  Bish- 
op White  informs  us,  that  "they  thought  that 
the  form  of  ecclesiastical  Government  could 
hardly  be  called  Episcopal  while  such  a  matter 

*  Mr.  Robert  Andrews,  recorded  as  a  lay  deputy  to  the 
Convention  of  1789,  was  a  secularized  priest  of  the  Church, 
who,  on  discontinuing  the  ministry,  had  pursued  the  voca- 
tion of  a  Professor  in  the  College  of  William  and  Mary  at 
Williamsburg,  Va. 

"f  Memoirs  of  the  Church,  p.  146. 


240  The  General  Ecclesiastical 


was  held  out  as  speculatively  possible."  In 
1808  the  words  "unless  adhered  to  by  four- 
fifths  of  the  other  House"  were  stricken  out.* 
Thus  the  Episcopal  veto  was  secured.  In  the 
language  of  Dr.  Hawks,  "to  Bishop  Seabury 
belongs  the  merit  of  having  made  the  Bishops 
an  equal  and  coordinate  power  in  the  work  of 
our  ecclesiastical  legislation.  Instead  of  a 
mere  council  of  revision,  he  made  the  Bishops 
a  senate,  or  upper  house,  holding  their  places 
for  life  ;  thus  most  effectually  upholding,  as 
was  proper,  the  dignity  and  respectability  of 
the  Bishops,  giving  more  stability  to  the  leg- 
islation of  the  great  council  of  the  Church  and 
guarding  against  the  dangers  of  enactments, 
made  hastily  under  temporary  excitement,  "t 
The  union  of  the  Churches,  as  we  have  seen, 
was  not  effected  until  radical  changes  had 
been  made  in  the  General  Ecclesiastical  Con- 
stitution as  proposed  in  1785  and  amended  in 
1786.  The  right  of  a  Bishop  to  preside  at 
meetings  of  Convention  as  originally  provided 
by  White  in  his  draft  of  the  Constitution  of 

*  Memoirs  of  the  Church,  p.  146. 
I  Constitution  and  Canons,  p.  24. 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.   241 

1785  was   affirmed   in    1786,   thus  freeing  the 
Constitution    from    the    objections    raised   on 
every  side  to  its  alleged  depreciation  of  the 
Episcopal   office   and   dignity.      At   the   same 
time,  the  apparent  limitation  of  the  Episcopal 
office  to  the  right  "to  ordain  or  confirm"  was 
removed   by   the    insertion    of   the    additional 
words  "or  perform  any  other  act  of  the  Epis- 
copal office."     This  was  not  all.      In  the  arti- 
cle respecting  ecclesiastical  trials,   there  was 
added   after    the    words   "equitable    mode    of 
trial,"  the  provision  that  "at  every  trial  of  a 
Bishop,    there    shall   be   one   or   more   of   the 
Episcopal    Order    present;    and    none    but    a 
Bishop  shall  pronounce  sentence  of  deposition 
or    degradation    from     the    Ministry    on    any 
Clergyman,  whether  Bishop,  or  Presbyter,  or 
Deacon."     The    ratification    of    the    Proposed 
Book  was  deferred   "till   further  provision   is 
made  in  this  case  by  the  first  General  Conven- 
tion    which     shall     assemble    with    sufficient 
power  to  ratify  a  Book  of  Common  Prayer  for 
the   Church    in   these    States."     In    all    these 
changes  there  had  been  shown  a  growing  tend- 
ency   towards     conservatism     and     a     fuller 
16 


242  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

recognition  of  the  inherent  rights  of  the  Epis- 
copate. At  the  Wilmington  adjourned  Con- 
vention of  1786,  the  action  amending  the 
eighth  article,  which  had  been  excepted  to 
by  the  English  prelates  as  well  as  by  the 
Churchmen  at  the  North,  was  unanimously 
ratified;  and  further  action  was  taken  in  the 
important  matter  of  4  *  subscription. "  An  alter- 
nate form  was  adopted  to  meet  the  case  of 
those  seeking  consecration  or  ordination  from 
States  where  the  Proposed  Book  had  not  been 
approved.  This  measure  was  imperatively 
required  for  the  relief  of  Dr.  Provoost,  Bish- 
op-elect of  New  York,  since  the  "faith  and 
worship "  recognized  in  the  proposed  Consti- 
tution had  not  received  the  approval  of  the 
Church  of  New  York.  The  alternate  form 
adopted  required  the  subscriber  to  pledge 
himself  to  conform  to  the  use  of  the  English 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  except  so  far  as  it 
had  been  modified  in  consequence  of  the  war 
for  independence.  This  obligation  was  to 
continue  until  the  Proposed  Book  should  be 
finally  ratified,  or  until  another  revision  should 
take  place. 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.   243 

At  the  first  meeting  of  the  General  Conven- 
tion of  1789,  a  Committee  of  one  deputy  from 
each  State  was  appointed  to  take  into  consid- 
eration the  proposed  Constitution  and  to 
recommend  such  alterations,  additions  and 
amendments  as  they  should  deem  proper. 
After  two  days  consideration,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  first,  second,  fourth,  fifth,  sixth, 
seventh,  and  eighth  Articles  were  adopted 
and  made  "a  rule  of  conduct  for  this  Con- 
vention." This  action  left  two  Articles  for 
further  deliberation  —  those  concerning  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  the  mode  of 
adopting  and  altering  the  Constitution. 
These  Articles  were  subsequently  considered, 
amended  and  agreed  to  with  like  unanimity, 
and  the  engrossed  Constitution,  now  complete 
so  far  as  this  Convention's  action  could  make 
it,  was  signed  on  the  following  day,  August 
8th,   1789. 

This  Constitution  of  August,  1789,  was  the 
result,  Bishop  White  tells  us,  of  "the  con- 
viction generally  prevailing  in  the  Conven- 
tion that  the  formerly  proposed  Constitution 
was    inadequate     to    the     situation     of     the 


244  The  General  Ecclesiastical 


Church."  It  is  of  interest  to  notice  the  dis- 
claimer of  Bishop  White  that  the  added- 
powers  and  authority  accorded  to  the  Episco- 
pate were  the  result  of  his  interference  with 
the  action  of  the  Convention. 

"On  this  business,"  writes  Bishop  White, 
"the  President  of  the  Convention  met  the 
Committee  but  once,  and  interested  himself 
very  little;  being  desirous,  that  whatever  ad- 
ditional powers  it  might  be  thought  necessary 
to  assign  to  the  Bishops,  such  powers  should 
not  lie  under  the  reproach  of  having  been 
pressed  for  by  one  of  their  number,  but  be 
the  result  of  due  deliberation,  and  the  free 
choice  of  all  orders  of  persons  within  the 
Church  and  given  with  a  view  to  her  good 
government."  * 

In  the  adoption  of  the  changes  in  this  Con- 
stitution to  which  the  Bishop  refers,  it  is  cer- 
tainly but  just  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that 
the  fears  entertained  of  the  arrogance  or 
assumption  of  importance  and  authority  by 
the  Episcopate,  had  been  allayed,  even  in 
Virginia  and  South  Carolina,  as  men  saw  and 

*  White's  Memoirs  of  the  Church,  second  edition,  p.  144. 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    245 

noted  how  holily,  blamelessly  and  humbly 
William  White  bore  himself  as  a  Bishop  of 
the  Church  of  God.  He  who  had  done  so 
much  by  his  pen,  by  his  personal  efforts,  and 
by  his  persistency,  to  secure  the  Episcopal 
office  for  the  Church  in  the  United  States, 
made  that  office  and  dignity  honorable  in  the 
sight  of  all  men  by  the  manner  in  which  he 
ruled  the  flock  of  Christ  committed  to  his 
charge.  Men  could  not  withhold  from  him 
who  arrogated  nothing  to  himself  or  to  his 
office,  all  that  the  office  claimed,  all  that  its 
incumbent  could  desire. 

The  Constitution  of  August,  1789,  in  the 
first  article,  provided  for  a  triennial  meeting 
on  the  first  Tuesday  in  August,  beginning 
with  the  year  1792,  carefully  specifying  that 
"in  all  business  of  the  Convention  freedom  of 
debate  shall  be  allowed." 

The  second  Article  gave  to  the  Church  in 
each  State  a  representation  of  both  clergy  and 
laity,  numbering  one  or  more,  but  not  exceed- 
ing four,  of  each  order.  The  deputies  were  to 
be  chosen  by  the  Convention  of  the  State.  A 
call   for   a    vote   by    States    or    Dioceses    and 


246  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

Orders  could  be  made  by  the  clerical  or  lay 
representation  from  any  State.  In  this  case 
each  order  had  one  vote  and  ''the  majority 
of  suffrages  by  States  "  was  to  be  "  conclusive  in 
each  Order,  provided  such  majority  compre- 
hended a  majority  of  the  States  represented  in 
that  Order."  The  concurrence  of  both  Orders 
was  made  necessary  to  constitute  a  vote  of  the 
Convention.  Provision  was  made  in  the  event 
of  the  failure  or  refusal  of  the  Convention  of  any 
State  to  appoint  either  clerical  or  lay  deputies, 
or  in  case  the  accredited  deputies  failed  to 
attend  or  were  prevented  by  sickness  or  any 
other  accident  from  discharging  the  duties  of 
their  appointment.  In  such  case,  the  Church 
in  the  State  was  to  be  "considered  as  duly 
represented  by  such  deputy  or  deputies  as 
may  attend,  whether  clerical  or  lay."  Even  if 
no  deputies,  either  clerical  or  lay,  were  present 
at  any  General  Convention,  the  Church  in  the 
State,  having  adopted  the  Constitution,  was 
deemed  nevertheless  to  be  bound  by  the  acts 
of  such  Convention. 

By  this  provision  not  only  was  recognition 
made  of  Diocesan  or  State  independence,  but 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    247 

the  principle  was  laid  down  that  the  General 
Convention  was  to  be  composed  of  delegates 
of  such  order  as  the  Church  in  each  respective 
State  should  determine.  Connecticut,  Mas- 
sachusetts, and  New  Hampshire,  refusing  to 
send  lay  delegates,  were  to  be  admitted  on  the 
ground  that  the  nature  of  the  representation 
from  the  Church  in  any  State  was  to  be  such 
as  that  Church  should  elect.  The  represen- 
tation, and  of  course  the  manner  of  choosing 
that  representation,  were  matters  not  within 
the  purview  of  the  general  body,  but  were  sole- 
ly as  the  State  Convention  should  determine. 
With  wonderful  prevision  a  question  was  then 
settled  which  governs  a  burning  issue  of  this 
very  day.  The  principle  here  laid  down  is  still 
unchanged.  "Four  clergymen  and  four  lay- 
men, communicants  of  this  Church,  residents 
in  the  Diocese,  and  chosen  in  the  manner 
prescribed  by  the  Convention  thereof,"  make 
up  the  representation  of  a  Diocese,  whether 
large  or  small,  to-day. 

Article  third  introduced  a  new  principle  and 
created  a  new  body  heretofore  unrecognized 
in  the  legislation  proposed  or  adopted  in  the 


248  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

American  Church.      It  created,  at  all  General 
Conventions,  a  "House  of  revision"  to  be  com- 
posed of  ''the  Bishops  of  this  Church,  when 
there  shall  be  three  or  more."     The  language 
of  this  third  Article  is  striking.      In  this  crea- 
tion of  the  House  of  Bishops  as  a   House  of 
revision,  this  new  element  in  the   legislation 
of   the   Church    is    regarded    as    distinct    and 
separate    from    the    General   Convention,  and 
this  House  of  revision  is  made,  by  the  wording 
of  the  Article,  emphatically  an  upper  House. 
It   is   provided   that  "when  any  proposed  act 
shall  have  passed  in  the  General  Convention, 
the  same  shall  be  transmitted  to  the  House  of 
revision   for   their   concurrence.      And    if    the 
same   shall  be   sent  back  to  the  Convention, 
with  the  negative  or  non-concurrence  of  the 
House  of  revision,  it  shall  be  again  considered 
in  the   General   Convention,  and   if   the  Con- 
vention   shall    adhere    to    the    said    act   by  a 
majority  of  three-fifths  of  their  body,  it  shall 
become   a   law   to  all    intents    and    purposes, 
notwithstanding   the   non-concurrence   of   the 
House  of  revision;   and   all   acts  of  the  Con- 
vention shall  be  authenticated  by  both  Houses. 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    249 

And,  in  all  cases,  the  House  of  Bishops  shall 
signify  to  the  Convention  their  approbation 
or  disapprobation,  the  latter  with  their  reasons 
in  writing,  within  two  days  after  the  proposed 
act  shall  have  been  reported  to  them  for  con- 
currence; and  in  failure  thereof,  it  shall  have 
the  operation  of  a  law.  But  until  there  shall 
be  three  or  more  Bishops  as  aforesaid,  any 
Bishop  attending  a  General  Convention  shall 
be  amember  ex  officio,  and  shall  vote  with  the 
Clerical  Deputies  of  the  State  to  which  he 
belongs;  and  a  Bishop  shall  then  preside." 

Great  as  was  the  advance  towards  a  due 
recognition  of  the  Episcopal  character  and 
office  shown  by  the  unanimous  adoption  of 
this  Article  of  the  Constitution  of  August, 
1789,  it  was  still  insufficient.  At  the  ad- 
journed meeting  in  September  and  October 
of  this  same  year,  1789,  Bishop  Seabury,  with 
the  Churches  of  New  England,  came  into  the 
union,  but  not  until  a  further  modification  of 
this  Article  had  been  adopted.  The  Bishop 
of  Connecticut  and  the  New  England  Churches 
made  it  a  condition  of  their  acceding  to  the 
Constitution,  that  this  third  Article  should  be 


250  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

so  modified  as  "to  declare  explicitly  the 
rights  of  the  Bishops  when  sitting  in  a  separ- 
ate House,  to  originate  and  propose  acts  for 
the  concurrence,"  not  of  the  General  Conven- 
tion, but  of  "the  other  House  of  Convention, 
and  to  negative  such  acts  proposed  by  the 
other  House  as  they  may  disapprove,  pro- 
vided they  are  not  adhered  to  by  four-fifths  of 
the  other  House."  This  change  was  agreed 
to,  although,  as  we  shall  see,  the  full  negative 
was  not  yet  conceded,  since  four-fifths  of  the 
other  House  could  overcome  this  negative; 
but  the  recognition  of  the  Bishops  sitting  in 
Convention  as  an  equal  and  coordinate  power 
in  our  general  ecclesiastical  legislature,  and 
as  a  separate  House,  was  happily  secured. 
To  Bishop  Seabury  this  advance  to  a  fitting 
recognition  of  Episcopal  authority  and  dig- 
nity, is  due.  In  the  well-considered  language 
of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hawks, — 

"Instead  of  a  mere  council  of  revision,  he 
made  the  Bishops  a  senate  or  upper  House,  hold- 
ing their  places  for  life;  thus  more  effectually  up- 
holding, as  was  proper,  the  dignity  and  respecta- 
bility of  the  Bishops,  giving  more  stability  to  the 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.   251 

legislation  of  the  great  council  of  the  Church,  and 
guarding  against  the  dangers  of  enactments  made 
hastily  under  temporary  excitements." 

We  learn  from  Bishop  White  that  "from 
the  sentiments  expressed  in  the  debate"  in  the 
Convention  on  this  requirement  by  Seabury 
and  the  New  England  Churchmen  of  the 
Episcopal  negative  as  a  condition  of  their 
entering  the  union  of  the  Churches,  "there 
is  reason  to  believe  that  the  full  negative 
would  have  been  allowed,  had  not  Mr.  An- 
drews from  Virginia," — a  secularized  priest 
holding  an  appointment  as  a  lay  deputy  from 
the  Church  in  that  State  — ' '  very  seriously,  and 
doubtlessly  very  sincerely,  expressed  his 
apprehension,  that  it  was  so  far  beyond  what 
was  expected  by  the  Church  in  his  State,  as 
would  cause  the  measure  to  be  otherwise  dis- 
owned." In  consequence  of  these  apprehen- 
sions, the  subject  of  the  full  negative  was 
referred  "to  some  subsequent  General  Con- 
vention, to  be  determined  according  to  in- 
structions from  the  Conventions  in  the 
several  States. "  Bishop  White  further  informs 
us  that  "the   Eastern  gentlemen  acquiesced, 


252  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

but  reluctantly,  in  this  compromise."  "Had 
there  been,"  the  Bishop  proceeds,  "no  more 
than  their  apprehension  of  laws  passing  by 
a  majority  of  four-fifths,  after  a  non-concur- 
rence of  the  bishops,  the  extreme  improbabil- 
ity of  this  would  —  it  is  thought  —  have  been 
confessed  by  them.  But  the  truth  is — they 
thought  that  the  frame  of  ecclesiastical  gov- 
ernment could  hardly  be  called  Episcopal, 
while  such  a  matter  was  held  out  as  specula- 
tively possible."  In  consequence  of  this  con- 
cession on  the  part  of  Seabury  and  his  clerical 
assessors  it  was  further  "Resolved,  that  it  be. 
made  known  to  the  several  State  Conventions 
that  it  is  proposed  to  consider  and  determine 
in  the  next  General  Convention,  on  the  pro- 
priety of  investing  the  House  of  Bishops  with 
a  full  negative  on  the  proceedings  of  the  other 
House." 

This  matter  having  been  determined,  as 
we  have  stated,  by  a^  compromise,  "the 
General  Constitution  of  the  Church,  as  now 
altered  and  amended,"  was  "laid  before  the 
Right  Rev.  Dr.  Seabury  and  the  deputies 
from  the  Churches  in  the  Eastern  States  for 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    253 


their  approbation  and  assent."  This  assent 
was  given.  Bishop  Seabury  signed  the  Con- 
stitution with  Learning  and  Hubbard  as  his 
clerical  proctors  from  Connecticut,  and  Parker 
as  representing  the  Church  in  Massachusetts 
and  New  Hampshire. 

It  was  then  resolved  "that  agreeable  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  Church  as  altered  and  con- 
firmed, there  is  now  in  this  Convention  a 
separate  House  of  Bishops."  The  Bishop  of 
New  York  was  absent  from  the  Convention, 
so  that  but  two  of  the  three  Bishops  were  in 
attendance  at  the  time.  Still  it  was  ruled 
that  the  case  contemplated  in  the  Constitution 
existed;  and  consequently  the  Bishops  of  the 
Church,  there  being  three  in  number,  with- 
drew, and  formed  the  first  House  of  Bishops 
of  the  American  Church.  Bishop  White  had 
been  president  of  the  Convention  prior  to  the 
organization  of  the  House  of  Bishops.  With 
characteristic  self-forgetfulness  and  generous 
courtesy,  he  recognized  in  Seabury,  the  senior 
Bishop,  the  presiding  officer  of  the  newly  cre- 
ated House  of  Bishops,  thus  establishing  the 
rule   which    has  obtained,  with  a  brief  inter- 


254  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

ruption,  to  the  present  day,   determining  the 
presiding  Bishop  by  seniority  of  consecration. 

The  further  history  of  the  Episcopal  nega- 
tive may  be  briefly  summarized.  At  the 
Convention  of  1792,  agreeably  to  the  resolu- 
tion offered  and  adopted  in  1789,  an  effort 
was  made  to  change  the  Article  of  the  Consti- 
tution so  as  to  render  the  consent  of  the 
Bishops  necessary  to  the  adoption  of  every 
measure,  and  to  take  from  the  House  of 
Deputies  the  right  to  override  the  Episcopal 
negative  by  a  vote  of  four-fifths.  This  was 
strenuously  opposed  by  the  lower  House,  and 
some  of  the  State  Conventions  gave  specific 
instructions  to  their  representatives  to  vote 
against  the  proposed  change.  The  measure 
proposed  failed  of  success,  and  was  again  de- 
feated in  1789  and  in  1801.  In  1808  the 
change  was  finally  adopted,  the  words  "unless 
adhered  to  by  four-fifths  of  the  other  House" 
being  stricken  out.  Thus  the  Episcopal  veto 
desired  by  Seabury  was  at  length  obtained. 

At  this  Convention  of  1808,  held  in  Balti- 
more, a  question  of  no  little  interest  seemed 
likely   to    arise    under   this   Article,  as   inter- 


Constitution  of  the  American  CJinrcJi.    255 

preted  by  the  formation  of  the  House,  with  the 
presence  of  but  two  of  the  three  Bishops  of  the 
Church.  The  question  was,  whether  a  single 
Bishop,  there  being  three  or  more  in  the 
Church,  could  constitute  a  House.  Upon  this 
question,  Bishop  White  informs  us  that  he 
was  prepared  to  support  the  affirmative  as 
being  most  agreeable  to  the  letter  of  the  Con- 
stitution, and  also  as  on  the  contrary  supposi- 
tion nothing  could  have  been  done.  Happily, 
the  issue  was  not  found  to  be  necessary. 

Article  fourth  provided  that  the  choice  or 
election  of  Bishops  should  "be  agreeable  to 
such  rules  as  shall  be  fixed  by  the  Convention 
of  the  Diocese,"  and  further  enacted,  that 
"every  Bishop  of  the  Church  shall  confine  the 
exercise  of  his  Episcopal  office  to  his  proper 
Diocese  unless  requested  to  ordain,  or  confirm, 
or  perform  any  other  act  of  the  Episcopal  office 
in  another  Diocese  by  the  Ecclesiastical  au- 
thority thereof." 

The  Fundamental  Principles  of  1784  contain 
no  provision  of  this  nature;  but  the  draft 
Constitution  of  1785,  the  composition  of 
White,  has  the  basis  of  the  present  article — 


256  The  General  Ecclesiastieal 

the  language  as  proposed  by  Dr.  White  being 
identical  with  that  now  used,  with  only  the 
limitation  of  the  last  clause,  as  follows:  "un- 
less requested  to  ordain  or  confirm  by  any 
Church  destitute  of  a  Bishop." 

This  restriction  was  regarded  both  in  En- 
gland and  at  the  North  as  unduly  restricting 
the  powers  of  the  Episcopate.  It  was  feared 
that  the  radical  views  of  the  parity  of  the 
Episcopal  and  priestly  office,  save  in  the  spec- 
ified matters  of  ordination  and  confirmation,  as 
urged  in  Virginia  and  accepted  still  further  at 
the  southward,  would  find  justification  by  the 
language  of  the  proposed  article.  In  1786, 
the  words  were  added,  after  "ordain  and 
confirm,"  "or  perform  any  other  act  of  the 
Episcopal  office  by  any  Church  destitute  of  a 
Bishop.  In  1789,  the  article  as  thus  modified 
was  re-enacted  with  the  verbal  change  of  the 
word  "jurisdiction"  to  the  words  "State  or 
district,"  which,  with  the  omission  of  the 
words  "or  district"  and  the  change  of  "State" 
to  "diocese,"  is  the  language  of  the  article  as 
now  in  force. 

It  has  been  urged  that  the  Constitution  of 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.   257 

the  Church,  as  formulated  by  this  Article,  con- 
templates the  office  of  a  Bishop  as  necessarily 
connected  with  some  field  over  which  he  is  to 
exercise  jurisdiction,  and  consequently  that  a 
Bishop  cannot  constitutionally  resign  his  sec, 
since  the  American  Church  does  not  recognize 
the  possibility  of  a  Bishop  at  large.  This  con- 
struction is  certainly  not  warranted,  either  by 
historical  precedent  or  even  by  the  language 
of  the  Article  itself. 

If  we  regard  at  all  the  animus  imponentis 
the  Article  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  ques- 
tion of  resignation,  but  is  intended  merely  to 
prescribe  what  shall  be  the  conduct  of  a 
Bishop  in  full  possession  of  his  see.  Besides, 
it  was  the  historic  Episcopate  that  our  fathers 
sought  and  obtained,  and  in  all  ages  Episco- 
pal jurisdiction  has  been  confined  within  de- 
fined limits,  and  at  the  same  time  Bishops 
have  for  cause  been  permitted  again  and  again 
to  resign.  That  the  matter  of  Episcopal 
resignation  was  not  intended  to  be  precluded 
by  this  Article,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that 
the  legislation  of  the  Church  makes  provision, 
by    canon,    for    resignations,    and    determines 

17 


258  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

under  what  circumstances  and  in  what  manner 
they  shall  take  place. 

Another  question  has  arisen  under  this 
Article  which  is  certainly  not  less  important. 
When  Virginia,  acting  under  the  provision 
contained  in  the  first  clause  of  this  Article, 
to-wit:  "that  bishops  shall  be  chosen  agree- 
ably to  such  rules  as  shall  be  fixed  by  the 
Convention  of  that  State,"  elected  William 
Meade  as  assistant  to  Bishop  Richard  Chan- 
ning  Moore,  it  was  expressly  declared  by  the 
Convention  that  in  case  the  assistant  Bishop 
should  survive  the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese, 
the  right  of  succession  was  not  necessarily  to 
belong  to  the  assistant  but  was  to  depend  on 
the  further  action  of  the  Convention.  It 
was  possible,  therefore,  that  on  the  death  of 
the  apostolic  Channing  Moore,  Bishop  Meade 
might  be  left  a  Bishop  at  large,  having  mis- 
sion, but  without  jurisdiction,  —  since  the  Vir- 
ginia Convention  was  at  liberty  to  elect  some 
one  else  as  the  Diocesan.  It  was  thought  at 
the  time  that  the  action  of  the  Virginia  Con- 
vention violated  the  spirit  if  not  the  letter 
of  this  Article  of  the  Constitution,  and  on  this 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.   259 

ground  opposition  was  made  to  the  consecra- 
tion of  Dr.  Meade.  Even  the  Bishops  felt  that 
it  would  be  a  dangerous  example;  and  while 
they  determined  to  proceed  to  consecrate,  they 
yet  resolved  to  accompany  the  act  with  a  pro- 
test against  its  becoming  a  precedent. 

The  Virginia  Convention  assumed  that  in 
the  exercise  of  her  rights  as  an  independent 
Church,  the  Church  in  that  State  had  author- 
ity to  make  this  condition  a  part  of  the  elec- 
tion. This  view  would  have  been  sustained 
under  the  first  clause  of  Article  fourth,  which 
permitted  the  State  Convention  to  fix  its  own 
rules  in  electing  a  Bishop,  had  the  proviso 
related  at  all  to  the  mode  of  election.  It  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  mode  of  the  election, 
however,  which  had  proceeded  according  to 
rules  long  before  adopted  in  Virginia.  It  was 
to  become  operative  —  if  operative  at  all  —  at 
a  period  subsequent  to  the  election,  after 
Bishop  Meade  had  been,  possibly,  for  years 
acting  as  a  Bishop,  and  fulfilling  the  duties 
and  responsibilities  of  his  sacred  office  agree- 
ably to  the  canons  of  the  Church  in  such  case 
made    and   provided.      The   General  Conven- 


260  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

tion  had  no  authority  to  criticise  or  condemn 
the  mode  or  form  of  electing,  provided  that 
it  was  done  according  "to  the  fixed  rules  of 
the  Convention."  The  right  to  elect  a  Bishop 
agreeably  to  her  own  rules  and  in  her  own 
appointed  way  was  one  of  the  independent, 
sovereign  rights  that  had  never  been  ceded  or 
surrendered  by  Virginia  to  the  Church  at 
large.  She  had,  however,  surrendered  the 
right  of  having  at  her  pleasure  and  within  her 
limits  a  Bishop  whose  condition  was  that  of 
ecclesiastical  vagrancy,  —  a  Bishop  with  mis- 
sion, indeed,  but  without  jurisdiction,  power, 
or  respect.  A  Bishop  chosen  for  Virginia 
and  chosen  by  Virginia  and  confined  in  the 
exercise  of  his  jurisdiction  to  Virginia  only, 
was  still  a  part  of  the  universal  historic  epis- 
copate,—  a  Bishop  of  the  Church  in  the  United 
States,  —  a  Bishop  of  the  Church  of  God. 
Deprived  of  the  right  to  exercise  his  office  in 
Virginia,  as  this  declaration  made  possible, 
he  was  still  at  liberty  to  perform  any  Episco- 
pal office  in  any  other  State  or  Diocese,  if 
desired  so  to  do  by  the  ecclesiastical  authority 
of  the  same.      The  credit  and  character  of  the 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    261 

whole  Church  was  therefore  concerned  in  his 
position,  his  respectability,  his  inherent 
rights.  While  a  Diocese  might  limit  the  exer- 
cise of  the  Episcopal  office  by  canonical  regu- 
lations, no  Diocese  had  the  right  to  make  such 
laws  as  would  in  effect  strip  the  Bishop  of 
his  proper  spiritual  functions,  or  serve  to 
deprive  him  of  all  authority  and  leave  him 
"an  object  of  contempt  instead  of  respect." 
It  is  not  supposed  that  Virginia  proposed  to 
do  this  to  Bishop  Meade,  who  was  then,  as 
ever  afterwards,  universally  and  deservedly 
respected  and  beloved;  but  a  door  was  left 
open  through  which  such  results  might  subse- 
quently enter;  and  so  the  matter  was  amicably 
and  satisfactorily  settled  by  canonical  legisla- 
lation,  providing  that  in  all  cases  the  assistant 
Bishop  should  have  the  right  of  succession. 

The  fifth  Article  of  this  Constitution,  as  at 
present  in  force,  relates  to  the  admission  of 
new  Dioceses;  noting  the  precedent  consent 
required;  the  number  of  Presbyters  and  par- 
ishes competent  for  the  creation  of  a  Diocese; 
carefully  specifying  the  rights  of  the  Diocesan 
and  the  Assistant  Bishop,  in  the  case  of  the 


262  The  General  Ecclesiastical 


division  of  a  Diocese,  and  providing  a  Consti- 
tution and  canons  for  the  new  Diocese,  until 
the  same  were  altered  or  provided  by  the 
new  Diocese  itself. 

This  Article  is  the  expansion  of  the  simple 
provision  of  Article  five  of  1789,  that  "a 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  any  of  the 
United  States,  not  now  represented,  may,  at 
any  time  hereafter,  be  admitted  on  acceding  to 
this  Constitution."  By  this  simple  provision 
our  fathers  proposed  to  secure  the  perpetuation 
of  Diocesan  independence.  As  they  had 
come  into  the  union,  surrendering  only  those 
rights  and  powers  to  the  central  or  national 
organization  specifically  stated  in  the  Consti- 
tution or  bond  of  union,  so  were  other  State  or 
Diocesan  Churches  to  come  in  for  all  time. 
Whatever  may  be  the  action  of  the  future,  at 
our  organization  and  for  the  first  century  of 
our  existence,  Diocesan  independence  has 
been  the  acknowledged  law  and  rule  of  our 
Church  life  and  being.  It  is  evident  from  the 
language  of  the  Article,  that  even  now,  on 
application,  the  "Church  in  any  part  of  the 
United  States,  or  any  territory  thereof,  not  now 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    263 

1 
represented  may,  at  any  time  hereafter,  be  ad- 
mitted on  acceding  to  this  Constitution:"  the 
restriction  respecting  the  number  of  parishes 
and  resident  Presbyters  holding  only  with  ref- 
erence to  the  formation  of  new  Dioceses  by  the 
division  of  existing  Dioceses.  The  State  or 
Territorial  Church  has  the  right  to  admission 
to  the  union  whenever,  in  the  judgment  of  its 
resident  priests  and  parishes,  whether  few  or 
many,  it  may  organize  and  apply  for  admis- 
sion. 

Article  sixth  provides  for  "ecclesiastical 
courts,  trials,  and  sentences."  The  evolution 
of  this  Article  is  full  of  interest.  The  neces- 
sity of  some  effectual  means  for  the  exercise 
of  discipline  in  the  case  of  clergymen  of  evil 
lives  is  urged  in  The  Case  of  the  Episcopal 
Churches  Considered.  The  amenability  of 
the  clerical  order  of  every  grade  to  the  Con- 
vention, was  a  principle  to  which  William 
White,  in  1782,  refers  again  and  again.  It  is 
included  in  the  fifth  Fundamental  Principle  of 
the  May  meeting  of  clergy  and  laity,  under 
the  Presidency  of  White,  in  1784,  which 
places  the   whole    matter  of   canonical    le^is- 


264  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

lation    and    procedure    in    "a    representative 
body  of  the  clergy  and  laity  conjointly."     It 
appears     in     the    "additional    Constitutions" 
"respecting  the  future  discipline  and  govern- 
ment"  of   the   Maryland    Church,   adopted  at 
Annapolis,    June,    1787.      The    first    of    these 
Constitutions    provides    for    the    exercise    of 
"the     power     and     authority     necessary     for 
receiving  and   excluding   from    Church   privi- 
leges   scandalous    members,    whether    lay    or 
clerical,    and   all   jurisdiction   with    regard    to 
offenders;"  together  with  "the  power  of  sus- 
pending   or    dismissing     clergymen     (of    all 
orders)"*  from  the  exercise  of  their  ministry; 
and  the  second  of  these  Constitutions  remands 
to  the  Standing  Committee,  during  the  recess 
or  adjournment  of  Convention,  authority  "in 
all  matters  respecting  the  discipline  and  gov- 
ernment of  the  Church." 

Virginia  provided  by  canons  in  May,  1785, 
that  "Bishops  shall  be  amenable  to  the  Con- 
vention, who  shall  be  a  court  to  try  them, 
from  which  there  shall  be  no  appeal.  All 
accusations  against  a  Bishop  shall  come  from 

*  Perry's  Historical  Notes  and  Documents,  pp.  33. 


Constitution  of 'the  American  Church.    265 

Vestries,  three  being  required  to  join  in  the 
complaint."  "Disorderly,  scandalous,  and 
immoral  conduct,  neglect  of  duty,  a  disregard 
to  the  rules  and  canons  of  the  Church,  or  tak- 
ing a  bribe  to  grant  either  ordination  or 
recommendation  for  a  vacant  parish"  were  to 
be  "considered  as  offences  in  a  Bishop,  for 
which  he  may  be  brought  to  trial,  and  on  his 
bein^  convicted  of  anv  of  these  he  shall  be 
reproved,  or  suspended,  or  dismissed,  at  the 
discretion  of  the  Court."  The  Standing  Com- 
mittee was  empowered  "to  receive  complaints 
against  the  clergy,  and  to  direct  courts  of 
examination,  pursuant  to  the  rules  for  the 
government  of  the  Church, "but  it  was  provid- 
ed that  "no  Bishop  shall  inflict  any  censure 
upon  or  exercise  any  power  over  the  clergy, 
under  his  inspection,  other  than  he  is  allowed 
to  do  by  the  laws  and  institutions  of  this 
Church,  made  in  Convention."  In  Massachu- 
setts and  Rhode  Island  the  Pennsylvania 
Fundamental  Principle  was  adopted  un- 
changed. 

In  the  draft  Constitution  of   1785,  prepared 
by  White,  it  was  provided  that  "every  clergy- 


266  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

man,  whether  Bishop,  or  Presbyter,  or  Dea- 
con, shall  be  amenable  to  the  authority  of  the 
Convention,  in  the  State  to  which  he  belongs; 
so  far  as  relates  to  suspension  or  removal  from 
office;  and  the  Convention  in  each  State  shall 
institute  rules  for  their  conduct,  and  equitable 
mode  of  trial." 

So  general  was  the  complaint  against  this 
proposed  Article  as  derogatory  to  the  Episco- 
pal office  and  character,  and  so  little  likely 
did  it  appear  that  the  English  Archbishops 
and  Bishops  would  communicate  the  succes- 
sion while  this  amenability  of  Bishops  to  their 
presbyters  and  laity  continued,  that  in  1786 
the  language  of  the  Article  was  materially 
changed  for  the  better.  As  it  now  read  it  pro- 
vided that  "in  every  State  the  mode  of  trying 
clergymen  shall  be  instituted  by  the  Conven- 
tion of  the  Church  therein.  At  every  trial  of  a 
Bishop  there  shall  be  one  or  more  of  the  Epis- 
copal order  present;  and  none  but  a  Bishop 
shall  pronounce  sentence  of  deposition  or  deg- 
radation from  the  Ministry  on  any  clergyman, 
whether  Bishop,  or  Presbyter,  or  Deacon." 
This  Article  was  re-affirmed  in  1789  and,  with 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    267 

the  substitution  of  the  word  State  to  Diocese 
adopted  in  1839,  remained  unchanged  until 
1 84 1,  when  the  Article  was  put  in  its  present 
form.      This  is  as  follows: 

Article  6.  The  mode  of  trying  Bishops  shall 
be  provided  by  the  General  Convention.  The 
Court  appointed  for  that  purpose  shall  be  com- 
posed of  Bishops  only.  In  every  Diocese,  the 
mode  of  trying  Presbyters  and  Deacons  may  be 
instituted  by  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese. 
None  but  a  Bishop  shall  pronounce  sentence  of 
admonition,  suspension,  or  degradation  from  the 
Ministry,  on  any  Clergyman,  whether  Bishop, 
Presbyter,  or  Deacon. 

We  have  in  this  Article  the  only  provision 
in  this  Constitution  relating  to  the  Judiciary. 
It  is  evident  from  the  history  of  the  evolution 
of  this  Article  as  it  now  stands,  or  as  it  was 
adopted  in  1789,  that  had  the  effort  been 
made  at  first  to  remand  this  matter  to  the  Gen- 
eral Convention  it  would  have  lessened  mater- 
ially the  chances  of  union.  All  that  could  at 
first  be  hoped  for  was  the  removal  of  the 
oppressive  and  derogatory  provisions  at  first 
suggested,    making   the    Bishop    amenable    to 


268  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

trial  not  by  his  peers,   but  by  his  priests  and 
people   assembled   in   Convention.      The   pro- 
vision of  a  complete  judicial  system   for  the 
Church  at  large  has  been  the  dream  of    our 
canonists    from     the     first.      The     labors     of 
Hawks,  Hoffman,  and  others  distinguished  for 
their  accurate  knowledge  of  canonical  law  and 
procedure,  have  again  and  again  been  directed 
towards  securing   uniformity  of    judicial   pro- 
ceeding    and     judicial    decision.      That     this 
result  is  of  no  little  importance  to  the  peace 
and  prosperity  of  the  Church,  may  be  admit- 
ted without  discussion.      That  the  most  inef- 
ficient and  defective  part  of  our  ecclesiastical 
system  is  the  judiciary  of  the  Church,  cannot 
be   denied;   but  the  Church   in   General   Con- 
vention has  again  and  again  stopped  short  on 
the     threshold     of     instituting    an      appellate 
system,    and    it    is    doubtful,    in    view   of    the 
great    principle     of     Diocesan    independence, 
whether   such   a  system  can  ever  obtain.      In 
this  as   in   many   other   mooted    questions,    it 
may  be  better  to  bear  the  ills  of  which  we  are 
fully  cognizant  than  fly  to  others  of  which  wc 
know  little  or  nothing  at  all. 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.   269 

Article  seven  recites  the  pre-requisites  for 
ordination,  gives  the  form  of  declaration  to 
be  subscribed  by  all  candidates  for  admission 
to  orders,  and  requires  subscription  to  this 
declaration  in  the  case  of  clergymen  ordained 
by  a  foreign  Bishop  before  they  can  be  per- 
mitted to  officiate  as  ministers  of  this  Church. 

This  Article  finds  its  original  in  The  Case 
of  the  Episcopal  Churches  Considered.  In  the 
proposed  Constitution  of  1785  it  concerned 
itself  solely  with  the  matter  of  subscription. 
In  1786  a  preliminary  clause  was  adopted  to 
the  effect  that  "no  person  shall  be  ordained 
until  due  examination  had  by  the  Bishop  and 
two  Presbyters,  and  exhibiting  testimonials 
of  his  moral  conduct  for  three  years  past. 
signed  by  the  Minister  and  a  majority  of  the 
Vestry  of  the  Church  where  he  has  last 
resided."  Then  follows  the  provision  respect- 
ing subscription.  In  1789  this  Article  was 
adopted  as  it  stands  at  the  present  day. 

It  will  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  form  of 
subscription  given  in  this  Article  was  designed 
to  take  the  place  of  the  ex  animo  subscription 
to  the  XXXIX.  Articles  required  then  as  now 


270  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

by  the  Mother  Church  of  England.      At   the 
time  of  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution  the 
XXXIX.  Articles  had  not  been  formally  adopt- 
ed by  the  American  Church.      They  were  not 
"established"   until   the    12th   of   September, 
1 80 1.      It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  in  contra- 
distinction to  the  Church   of    England,    it    is 
only  in  the  most  general  manner  if  at  all,  that 
we  subscribe  to  the  Articles.      In  fact  only  on 
the   principle    that   they   formed   part   of   the 
doctrinal  standards  of  the  Mother  Church  at 
the  time  of  our  organization  and  are  included, 
as  are  the  English  canons  and  English  usages 
of  that  period,   as   part  of  our  common    law, 
binding  where  action  has  not  been  taken  to 
the  contrary  on  our  part,  —  can  these  Articles 
be    regarded   up  to  the  year   1801    as  of  any 
authority  whatever  in  the  American  Church. 
At  that  date  they  were  "established."     The 
full  meaning  and  bearing  of  this  term  is  yet 
to  be  ascertained  by  competent  authority. 

Article  eight  sets  forth  the  present  Ameri- 
can Book  of  Common  Prayer.  The  Case  of 
the   Episcopal  Churches   Considered  proposed 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.   271 


the  review  of  the  English   Prayer  Book.      Its 
language  is  as  follows: 

As  to  divine  worship,  there  must  no  doubt  be 
somewhere  the  power  of  making  necessary  and 
convenient  alterations  in  the  service  of  the  Church. 
But  it  is  to  be  used  with  great  moderation;  other- 
wise the  communion  will  become  divided  into  an 
infinite  number  of  smaller  ones,  all  differing  from 
one  another  and  from  that  in  England." 

The  third  Fundamental  Principle  of  the 
May  Convention  in  Philadelphia,  in  1784, 
asserted  doctrinal  conformity  to  the  Church 
of  England,  and  the  continuation  of  ''uni- 
formity of  worship"  "as  near  as  may  be  to 
the  liturgy  of  said  Church."  Maryland,  Mas- 
sachusetts and  Rhode  Island  used  similar  lan- 
guage. The  fourth  Fundamental  Principle 
of  the  general  meeting  at  New  York,  in 
October,  in  1784,  provided  "that  the  said 
Church  shall  maintain  the  doctrines  of  the 
Gospel  as  now  held  by  the  Church  of  England: 
and  shall  adhere  to  the  liturgy  of  the  said 
Church,  so  far  as  shall  be  consistent  with  the 
American  revolution  and  the  Constitutions  <>( 
the  respective  States." 


272  The  General  Ecclesiastical 


The   Virginia  Convention    refused    to   bind 
itself  to  this  fourth  Fundamental  Proposition 
"until  the  same  shall  be  revised"  at  the  Gen- 
eral Convention  to  be  held  at  Philadelphia  in 
1785,   and  then    reported    to   the    subsequent 
Virginia  Convention.      New   York    and    New 
Jersey  instructed  their  respective  deputies  to 
the  Convention  of  1 78 5   to  approve  this  pro- 
vision, together  with  the  other  Fundamental 
Principles.     Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and 
New  Hampshire  proceeded  to  make  a  revision 
of  their  own  in  a  Convention  held  September, 
1785.     Connecticut,  on  the  arrival  of  Seabury, 
altered   the   State   prayers    and    discussed  the 
adoption  of  a  few  changes,  substantially  those 
adopted  by  the  joint  Convention  of  Massachu- 
setts, Rhode  Island  and  New  Hampshire;   but 
deferred  definite  action  thereon.      In  the  year 
1785,    in   White's  proposed    Constitution,   the 
fourth  Article  provided  that  — 

The  Book  of  Common  Prayer  and  administra- 
tion of  the  Sacraments,  and  other  rites  and  cere- 
monies of  the  Church  according  to  the  use  of  the 
Church  of  England,  shall  be  used  by  the  Church 
as  the   same  is  altered  by   this   Convention  in  a 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.   273 

certain  instrument  passed  by  their  authority,  enti- 
tled Alterations  of  the  Liturgy  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
in  order  to  render  the  same  conformable  to  the 
American  revolution  and  the  constitutions  of  the 
respective  States. 

The  ninth  Article  of  this  proposed  Consti- 
tution provided  for  the  use  of  the  Proposed 
Book  "when  the  same  shall  be  ratified  by  the 
Conventions  which  have  respectively  sent  del- 
egates to  this  Convention."  In  1789  the  Arti- 
cle was  adopted  as  follows: 

"A  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  administration  of 
the  Sacraments,  and  other  rites  and  ceremonies  of 
the  Church,  Articles  of  religion,  and  a  form  and 
manner  of  making,  ordaining,  and  consecrating 
bishops,  priests  and  deacons,  when  established 
by  this  or  a  future  General  Convention,  shall  be 
used  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  those 
States  which  shall  have  adopted  this  Constitution." 

The  history  of  this  practical  return  to  the 
English  Book  as  the  basis  of  the  American 
revision  of  1789  is  detailed  at  length  by 
Bishop  White,  who  was  present  as  a  spectator 
in  the  House  of  Deputies  during  the  debate 

on  this  question: 

18 


274  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

"In  the  appointment  of  Committees  on  the  dif- 
ferent departments  of  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  Dr.  Parker  proposed  that  the  English  book 
should  be  the  ground  of  the  proceedings  held, 
without  reference  to  that  set  out  and  proposed  in 
1785.  This  was  objected  to  by  some,  who  con- 
tended that  a  liturgy  ought  to  be  formed  without 
reference  to  any  existing  book,  although  with 
liberty  to  take  from  any,  whatever  the  Convention 
should  think  fit.  The  issue  of  the  debate,  was  the 
wording  of  the  resolves  as  they  stand  on  the 
Journal,  in  which  the  different  Committees  are 
appointed,  to  prepare  a  morning  and  evening 
prayer,  —  to  prepare  a  litany — to  prepare  a  com- 
munion office — and  the  same,  in  regard  to  the 
other  departments,  instead  of  its  being  said  —  to 
alter  the  said  services,  which  had  been  the  language 
in  1785.  This  was  very  unreasonable;  because 
the  different  congregations  of  the  Church  were 
always  understood  to  be  possessed  of  a  liturgy, 
before  the  consecration  of  her  bishops,  or  the 
existence  of  her  conventions.  It  would  have  been 
thought  a  strange  doctrine  in  any  of  the  clergy, 
had  they  pretended  that  they  were  released  from 
all  obligation  to  the  use  of  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  by  the  Revolution.  It  is  true,  that  Dr. 
Parker  had  carried  the  matter  too  far  in  speaking 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.   275 

of  the  Proposed  Book  as  a  form  of  which  they 
could  know  nothing,  considering  that  it  had  been 
proposed  by  a  preceding  Convention  from  a 
majority  of  the  States.  It  was  particularly  won- 
dered at  in  Dr.  Parker,  by  those  who  knew  that 
he  had  used  the  Book  in  his  own  Church  at  Bos- 
ton. But  as  the  Doctor,  during  the  preceding 
part  of  the  session,  had  been  looked  to  for  the 
opening  of  the  sentiments  of  the  Clergy  present 
from  Connecticut,  who  had  said  but  little  all 
along,  and  evidently  depended  on  him  to  press 
the  points  which  they  had  most  at  heart,  it  is 
probable  that  in  this  instance,  he  accommodated 
more  than  was  either  necessary  or  well  considered, 
to  make  matters  agreeable  to  their  minds.  The 
direct  course  would  have  been  to  have  taken  the 
English  liturgy,  as  that  in  which  some  alterations 
were  contemplated;  and  with  it,  the  other  as  a 
proposal,  agreeably  to  what  was  expressed  on  the 
title-page.  Certain  it  is,  that  the  extreme  pro- 
posed tended  very  much  to  the  opposite  extreme, 
which  took  effect  —  an  evident  implication  in  all 
proceedings  in  the  House,  that  there  were  no 
forms  of  prayer,  no  offices,  and  no  rubrics,  until 
they  should  be  formed  by  the  Convention  now 
assembled.  Every  one  must  perceive,  that  this 
abridged  the  species  of  negative  lodged  with  the 


276  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

House  of  Bishops.  For  if,  in  any  branch  of  the 
liturgy,  they  should  be  disposed  to  be  tenacious 
in  any  point,  which  should  be  a  deviation  from 
the  English  book,  the  consequence  must  be,  not 
that  the  prayer,  or  whatever  else  it  were,  remained 
as  before,  but  that  no  such  matter  were  to  be 
inserted.  This,  in  some  instances,  would  have 
operated  to  the  extent  of  excluding  a  whole 
office  of  the  Church,  if  the  negative  of  the 
Bishops  had  been  insisted  on.  They  did  not 
carry  their  right  so  far,  but  they  reasoned  and 
expostulated  on  the  point,  with  several  of  the 
gentlemen,  to  no  purpose.  They  would  not  allow 
that  there  was  any  book  of  authority  in  existence: 
a  mode  of  proceeding,  in  which  they  have  acted 
differently  from  the  Conventions  before  and  after 
them:  who  have  recognized  the  contrary  princi- 
ple when  any  matter  occurred  to  which  it  was 
applicable.  If  that  adopted  by  the  majority  of 
the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  had  been 
acted  on  by  the  clergy  and  individual  congrega- 
tions, on  the  taking  place  of  the  civil  Revolution, 
it  would  have  torn  the  Church  to  pieces.  On  the 
contrary,  the  idea  had  prevailed,  that  although 
the]civil  part  of  the  institution  was  destroyed,  and 
each  Christian  minister  lay  under  the  necessity  to 
discharge  the  Scriptural  duty  of  praying  for  his 


Cojistitntion  of  the  American  Church.    277 

civil  rulers  according  to  his  individual  discretion, 
the  rest  of  the  service  remained  entire,  on  the 
ground  of  antecedent  obligation."     *     *     * 

''The  principal  act  of  this  session  was  the  pre- 
paring of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  as  now  the 
established  Liturgy  of  the  Church.  It  will  not  be 
noticed  any  further,  than,  on  the  ground  of 
information  possessed,  to  account  for  the  doing  or 
for  the  omitting  of  any  important  matter.  The 
Journal  shows  that  some  parts  of  it  were  drawn 
up  by  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  and 
other  parts  of  it  by  the  House  of  Bishops.  In  the 
latter,  owing  to  the  smallness  of  the  number  and  a 
disposition  in  both  of  them  to  accommodate,  busi- 
ness was  despatched  with  great  celerity;  as  must 
be  seen  by  any  one  who  attends  to  the  progress  of 
the  subjects  recorded  on  the  Journal.  To  this 
day,  there  are  recollected  with  satisfaction,  the 
hours  which  were  spent  with  Bishop  Seabury,  on 
the  important  subjects  which  came  before  them; 
and  especially  the  Christian  temper  which  he 
manifested  all  along." 

"In  the  daily  prayer  for  morning  and  evening 
service,  the  principle  subjects  of  difference  arising 
between  the  two  Houses,  were  the  Athanasian 
Creed,  and  the  descent  into  hell  in  the  Apostles' 
Creed." 


278  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

"On  the  former  subject,  the  author  consented  to 
the  proposal  of  Bishop  Seabury,  of  making  it  an 
amendment  to  the  draft  sent  by  the  other  House 
to  be  inserted  with  a  rubric,  permitting  the  use  of 
it.  This,  however,  was  declared  to  be  on  the 
principle  of  accommodation,  to  the  many  who  were 
reported  to  desire  it,  especially  in  Connecticut, 
where,  it  was  said,  the  omitting  of  it  would  hazard 
the  reception  of  the  book.  It  was  the  author's 
intention  never  to  read  the  creed  himself,  and  he 
declared  his  mind  to  this  effect.  Bishop  Seabury, 
on  the  contrary,  thought  that  without  it,  there 
would  be  a  difficulty  in  keeping  out  of  the  Church 
the  errors  to  which  it  stands  opposed."  *  *  * 
"However,  the  Creed  was  inserted  by  way  of 
amendment;  to  be  used  or  omitted  at  discretion. 
But  the  amendment  was  negatived  by  the  other 
House;  and  when  the  subject  afterward  came 
up  in  conference,  they  would  not  allow  of  the 
Creed  in  any  shape,  which  was  thought  intolerant 
by  the  gentlemen  from  New  England,  who,  with 
Bishop  Seabury,  gave  it  up  with  great  reluctance." 

"The  other  subject — the  descent  of  Christ  into 
hell — was  left  in  a  situation  which  afterwards  not  a 
little  embarrassed  the  Committee  who  had  the 
charge  of  printing  the  book.  The  amendments  of 
the  Bishops,  whether  verbal  or   otherwise,   to  the 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    279 

services  sent  to  the  other  House,  had  all  been  num- 
bered. The  President  of  that  House,  as  after- 
wards appeared  on  unquestionable  verbal  testi- 
mony, accidentally  omitted  the  reading  of  the 
Article  in  its  full  force,  with  the  explanatory 
rubric.  The  meaning  of  the  Article  in  that  place, 
was  declared  to  be  the  state  of  the  dead,  gener- 
ally; and  this  was  proposed,  instead  of  the  form  in 
which  the  other  House  had  presented  it  —  in 
italics  and  between  hooks,  with  a  rubric  permitting 
the  use  of  the  words  'He  went  into  the  place  of 
departed  spirits.'  The  paper  of  the  House  in 
return  to  that  of  the  Bishops,  said  nothing  on  this 
head;  and  therefore  their  acquiescence  was  pre- 
sumed."    *     *     * 

"When  the  Committee  assembled  to  prepare 
the  book  for  the  press,  great  was  their  surprise 
and  that  of  the  author,  to  find  that  the  two  Houses 
had  misunderstood  one  another  altogether.  The 
question  was  —  what  was  to  be  done?  And  here, 
the  different  principles  on  which  the  business  had 
been  conducted,  had  their  respective  operation. 
The  Committee  contended,  that  the  amendment 
made  by  the  Bishops  to  the  service,  as  proposed 
by  their  House,  not  appearing  to  have  been 
presented,  the  service  must  stand  as  proposed  by 
them,   with  the  words  'He  descended   into  hell,' 


280  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

printed  in  italics  and  between  hooks;  and  with 
the  rubric  permissory  of  the  use  of  the  words,  'He 
went  into  the  place  of  departed  spirits.'  On  the 
contrary,  it  was  thought  a  duty  to  maintain  the 
principle,  that  the  Creed,  as  in  the  English  book, 
must  be  considered  as  the  Creed  of  the  Church, 
until  altered  by  the  consent  of  both  Houses  which 
was  not  yet  done.  Accordingly,  remonstrance 
was  made  against  the  printing  of  the  Article  of  the 
descent  into  hell  in  the  manner  in  which  it 
appears  in  the  book  published  at  the  time." 

"When  the  Convention  afterwards  met  in  New 
York  in  the  year  1792,  this  matter  came  in  review 
before  them;  and  the  result  was  the  ordering  of 
the  Creed  to  be  printed  in  all  future  editions  with 
the  Article  not  in  italics  and  between  hooks  as 
before,  but  with  the  rubric  leaving  it  to  discretion 
to  use  or  to  omit  it,  or  to  use,  instead  of  it,  the 
words  considered  by  the  rubric   as  synonymous." 

"The  House  of  Bishops,"  we  are  told  by 
Bishop  White,  "did  not  approve  of  the  ex- 
pedient of  the  other  House,  in  relation  to 
the  selections  as  they  now  stand,  to  be  used 
at  the  discretion  of  the  minister  instead  of  the 
Psalms  for  the  day."  Bishop  Seabury,  how- 
ever,  "interested   himself   in   the   subject   the 


Constitutio?i  of  the  American  Church.    281 

less,"  aware  that  his  clergy  would  "adhere  to 
the  old  practice."  Bishop  White's  proposal 
was  "to  give  to  the  officiating  minister  the 
liberty  to  select  Psalms  at  his  discretion." 

In  the  service  for  the  administration  of  the 
Communion,  Bishop  White  informs  us  that 
"it  may,  perhaps,  be  expected,  that  the 
great  change  made,  in  restoring  to  the  Con- 
secration prayer  the  oblatory  words  and  the 
invocation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  left  out  in  King 
Edward's  reign,  must  at  least  have  produced 
an  opposition.  But  no  such  thing  happened, 
to  any  considerable  extent,  or  at  least,  the 
author  did  not  hear  of  any  in  the  other  House, 
further  than  a  disposition  to  the  effect,  in  a 
few  gentlemen,  which  was  counteracted  by 
some  pertinent  remarks  of  the  president.  In 
that  of  the  Bishops,  it  lay  very  near  to  the 
heart  of  Bishop  Seabury.  As  for  the  other 
Bishop,  without  conceiving  with  some  that 
the  service  as  it  stood,  was  essentially  defect- 
ive, he  always  thought  there  was  a  beaut)-  in 
those  ancient  forms,  and  can  discover  no 
superstition  in  them." 

Bishop   Seabury    had,    on    his    return    from 


282  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

Scotland,  published  the  Eucharistic  office  of 
the  Scottish  Church,  and  recommended  it, 
agreeably  to  the  terms  of  the  concordat  en- 
tered into  with  the  Bishops  who  consecrated 
him,  to  the  use  of  the  Church  in  Connecticut. 
In  Maryland,  the  first  Convention  after  the 
issue  of  the  Proposed  Book  urged  the  addition 
to  the  Communion  office  of  the  oblation  and 
invocation  and  this  was  done  with  the  hearty 
approval  of  the  president,  Dr.  William  Smith. 
Thus  was  the  way  prepared  for  the  action 
taken  in  1789. 

In  181 1  the  second  clause  of  the  present 
Article  eight  was  added,  providing  the  manner 
in  which  alterations  or  additions  to  the  Prayer 
Book  could  be  made.  The  words  "or  the 
Articles  of  religion"  were  added  to  this  clause 
in  1829,  after  the  words  "Book  of  Common 
Prayer  or  other  Offices  of  the  Church."  In 
1877,  provision  was  made  for  the  amending  of 
the  Lectionary  from  time  to  time,  and  thus  the 
article  was  finally  brought  into  its  present 
shape. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  intent  of 
our  fathers  in  the   gradual   evolution   of   this 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.   283 

article  respecting  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer.  Their  purpose  was  undoubtedly  the 
transfer  of  the  obligation  to  use  with  strict 
rubrical  precision  the  Church's  Prayer  Book, 
which  obtained  in  the  Mother  Church  through 
the  Act  of  Uniformity,  to  our  American  revi- 
sion. There  was  no  idea  in  their  minds  of  an 
eclectic  use  of  offices  or  prayers.  Whatever 
was  of  obligation  in  the  Church  of  England 
was  to  be  of  obligation  still,  unless  there  had 
been  positive  action  permitting  or  establishing 
a  change.  The  very  difficulty  of  changing 
one  jot  or  tittle  of  the  Prayer  Book  would  be 
enough  to  prove  this  purpose  of  those  who 
revised  our  Prayer  Book.  Certainly  the  ani- 
mus imponcntis  of  our  fathers  warrants  only 
the  strictest  rubrical  conformity. 

Article   nine    relates   to   alterations   of    the* 
Constitution. 

The  proposed  Constitution  of  1785  pro- 
vided  that 

''This  General  Ecclesiastical  Constitution, 
when  ratified  by  the  Church  in  the  different 
States,   shall  be   considered   as   fundamental,  and 


284  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

shall   be    unalterable  by   the    Convention   of    the 
Church   in    any   State." 

In  1786,  it  was  enacted  that  "the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America,  when  ratified 
by  the  Church  in  a  majority  of  the  States 
assembled  in  General  Convention  with  suffi- 
cient power  for  the  purpose  of  such  ratifica- 
tion, shall  be  unalterable  by  the  Convention  of 
any  particular  State  which  hath  been  repre- 
sented at  the  time  of  such  ratification."  In 
1789  it  assumed  its  present  form,  with  the 
verbal  change,  in  1838,  of  the  word  "States" 
to  "Dioceses,"  and  the  word  "State"  to 
"Diocesan." 

It  is  under  this  article  that  various  ques- 
tions arise  respecting  the  rights  of  the  General, 
and  the  State  or  Diocesan,  Conventions. 

We  have  an  instrument — the  Charter  of  the 
American  Church  —  adopted,  and  unalterable 
save  after  long  and  tedious  process.  This 
instrument  has  appended  to  it  the  enacting 
clause:  "Done  in  the  General  Convention  of 
the  Bishops,  Clergy  and  Laity  of  the  Church, 
the  2nd  day  of  October,  1789."     It  was  adopt- 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    285 

ed  by  the  Bishops  and  deputies  of  the  Churches 
in  the  respective  States.  The  deputies  had 
been  empowered  by  their  constituencies  to 
enact  this  instrument.  Before  they  originally 
voted  to  accept  this  charter  of  rights  and  priv- 
ileges they  were  called  upon  to  declare  that 
they  had  this  power  entrusted  to  them. 

They  were  then  the  representatives  of  the 
Churches  in  the  respective  States  assembled 
in  State  or  Diocesan  Convention,  and  the 
Constitution  they  enacted  was  adopted  in 
their  representative  capacity  as  representing 
the  said  State  or  Diocesan  Churches  in  Con- 
vention assembled. 

In  this  Constitution  the  Church  in  each  State 
respectively  surrenders  all  power  of  altering 
this  instrument  save  in  accordance  with  the 
rules  and  in  the  manner  laid  down  in  the  Arti- 
cle itself. 

But  the  Church  in  each  State  or  diocese 
retained  the  right  of  having  any  proposed 
alteration  or  addition  "made  known"  to  it; 
and  unless  this  requirement  is  strictly  ob- 
served, the  Constitution  cannot  legally  be 
changed.      The    mode    of  alteration   is,  then, 


286  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

as  follows:  The  change  is  proposed  in  one 
General  Convention.  In  the  event  of  its  secur- 
ing at  this  time  the  constitutional  majority 
of  votes,  it  is  made  known  to  the  several 
Diocesan  Conventions,  and  then  it  is  "finally 
agreed  to  or  ratified"  at  the  session  of  the 
ensuing  General  Convention. 

It  is  evident  from  the  language  of  the  arti- 
cle requiring  that  the  alterations  shall  be  first 
proposed  in  one  General  Convention  and  shall 
further  be  made  known  to  the  several  Diocesan 
Conventions    that    these    changes    are    to    be 
"finally  agreed  to  or  ratified, — not  by — but  in 
the  ensuing  General  Convention.     We  agree 
to  or  ratify  something  which  has  been  deter- 
mined on,    not  merely  proposed.      We  ratify 
an  act  which  others,  not  ourselves,  have  per- 
formed.     Ex  vi  termini  it  would  appear  that 
action  some  where  else,  that  is,  in  some  other 
body  than  in  the  General  Convention,  is  evi- 
dently pre-supposed.     The  Article  directs  that 
the  alterations  proposed  shall  be  made  known 
to  the   several   Diocesan    Conventions    before 
they  shall    be    finally   agreed   to   or     ratified. 
The    previous    action,    so    evidently    contem- 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.    287 


plated  by  these  words,  must  necessarily  be  in 
the  several  Diocesan  Conventions.  The 
Churches,  in  State  or  Diocesan  Convention, 
enacted  this  Constitution.  They  are  naturally 
concerned  not  only  in  knowing,  but  in  taking 
action,  with  respect  to,  any  proposed  alteration 
in  the  charter  of  mutual  rights  and  obligations, 
in  the  making  of  which  they  respectively  took 
part. 

The  change  of  the  Constitution  is  therefore 
made  in  General  Convention,  not  by  General 
Convention,  but  by  the  Church  in  a  majority 
of  dioceses.  Consequently  the  Churches  in 
the  States  respectively,  quasi  States  or  dio- 
ceses, are  alone  competent  to  alter  the  Con- 
stitution. That  this  is  the  proper  interpreta- 
tion of  the  article  is  evident  from  the  fact  that 
Title  III.,  Canon  1,  §iii.,  makes  it  "the  duty 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  House  of  Deputies, 
whenever  any  alteration  of  the  Constitution  is 
proposed,  or  any  other  subject  submitted  to 
the  consideration  of  the  several  Diocesan  Con- 
ventions, to  give  a  particular  notice  thereof  to 
the  Ecclesiastical  Authority  in  every  Diocese;" 
and   this  canon,   with   but   slight   and    merely 


288  The  General  Ecclesiastical 

verbal  changes,  has  been  in  force  since  1808. 
Certainly   matter   thus    formally   communi- 
cated to  the  Church  in  each  State  or  diocese 
"for  the  consideration  of  the  several  Diocesan 
Conventions,"  presupposes  that  the  Church  in 
a  majority  of  dioceses  is  to  consider  and  fur- 
nish that  action  with  regard  to.  the  proposed 
alteration  which,  in  the  ensuing  General  Con- 
vention, is  to  be  finally  agreed  to  or  ratified. 
It   is   in   recognition   of  this   view  of  the  true 
meaning  of  this  article  that,  after  some  care- 
lessness at  first,  the  principle  has  long  since 
obtained  that  on  the  question  of  the  ratification 
of  proposed  changes  thus  made  known  to  the 
several  Conventions,  the  final  vote  in  the  en- 
suing General   Convention   must  be  taken  by 
States  and  dioceses.      It  is  also  agreed  that  it 
is  the   right   of  the   Church   in  each   State  or 
diocese  to  make  known  to  the  General  Con- 
vention the  action,  if  any,  taken  in  Diocesan 
Convention,   respecting  any   proposed   altera- 
tions of  the  Constitution  or  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  whether  affirmative  or  dissenting. 

We  may  further  infer  that  if  a  majority  of 
such     Diocesan     Conventions     should     make 


Constitution  of 'the  American  Church.    289 

known  their  disagreement  to  the  alteration  or 
alterations  proposed,  it  would  not  be  compe- 
tent for  the  ensuing  General  Convention  to 
make  these  alterations.  It  is  in  support  of 
this  view  that  we  would  refer  to  the  action 
taken  in  connection  with  the  changes  in  the 
Prayer  Book  proposed  by  Bishop  Hobart  in  the 
Convention  of  1826.  They  were  duly  com- 
municated to  the  Diocesan  Conventions.  In 
the  General  Convention  of  1829  a  resolution 
was  received  by  the  House  of  Deputies  from 
the  House  of  Bishops  that,  under  existing  cir- 
cumstances, it  was  inexpedient  to  make  the 
change,  and  the  House  concurred,  so  that  no 
direct  vote  was  taken.  Bishop  White,  in  his 
Memoirs  of  the  Church,  uses  this  language: 
"The  alterations  of  this  book  proposed  by 
the  last  General  Convention,  were  not  acted 
on  by  the  present,  having  been  found  unaccept- 
able to  the  major  number  of  the  Diocesan  Con- 
ventions." In  the  diocesan  Journals  from 
Maine  to  Mississippi  respectively  there  is 
recorded  a  formal  vote  of  dissent,  and  thus  the 
changes  proposed  were  negatived. 
19 


290  The  General  Ecclesiastical 


We  conclude,  then,  that  in  all  questions  of 
Constitutional  or  liturgical  changes,  the  vote 
in  the  House  of  Deputies  must  be  taken  by 
Dioceses. 

That  the  Diocesan  Convention  has  a  right 
to  make  known  to  the  General  Convention,  its 
action  with  respect  to  a  proposed  alteration  in 
the  Constitution  or  Prayer  Book,   is   evident. 

The  assent  of  the  Church  in  each  State  may 
be  assumed,  if  it  is  silent  or  has  taken  no 
measures  to  make  known  its  dissent. 

If  a  majority  of  the  Diocesan  Conventions 
do  make  known  their  dissent  to  any  proposed 
alteration,  the  General  Convention  ought  not, 
and  under  this  Article  is  certainly  not  com- 
petent, to  alter  the  Constitution  or  liturgy. 

Article  ten  provides  for  the  consecration 
of  Bishops  for  foreign  countries,  and  was 
agreed  to  and  ratified  in  1844.  Under  its 
provisions  —  though  it  is  to  be  feared  without 
a  careful  observance  of  its  requirements,  the 
Bishop  of  the  Valley  of  Mexico  was  consecra- 
ted, a  measure  well  intended,  but  resulting  in 
disappointment.  The  consecration  of  the 
Right  Rev.  Dr.  Holly  for  the  Church  in  Haiti, 


Constitution  of  the  American  Church.   291 

took  place   under  the   same  Article,  and  has 
proved  to  be  a  successful  venture  of  faith. 

In  our  review  of  the  Constitution,  as  now 
in  force,  we  cannot  but  close  as  we  began. 
To  William  White,  more  than  to  any  other 
one  of  our  fathers,  is  due  the  praise  of  having 
conceived,  and  by  patient  toil  carried  into 
execution,  the  main  principles  of  our  ecclesi- 
astical Constitution  and  system.  God  raised 
him  up  for  the  work  of  leadership;  God  gave 
him  the  rich  reward  of  superintending,  for 
half  a  century,  the  Church  which  owed  so 
much  to  him.  Wise,  conservative,  concilia- 
tory and  yet  firm,  he  left  his  impress  on  our 
very  being;  and  generations  yet  unborn  shall 
rise  up  to  call  him  blessed. 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01145  7084 


DATE  DUE 

Igffi j  i  '68 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.S.A. 

